Jeffries never lost in his prime, which you can't say about Johnson. Jeffries also beat the best HW in the world convincingly, which is again uncertain about Johnson.
Jeffries only had 19 fights in his prime. Johnson also won 19 fights during his prime. His victory over Burns was very clear.
I agree with every word. But I don't value wins over ridiculously green fighters as highly as I do prime for prime, and that is probably the crux of the argument. And Johnson's record is very patchy. Sure, he beat a lot of good guys at various parts of their careers, but he also lost to a lot of mediocre guys (normally I don't care for that, but Jeffries didn't) and he also fought a lot of small guys (Jeffries did too, but they were still the best in the world. Johnson's middleweight opposition weren't better than the HWs he wasn't fighting). Well the problem with this is that however high you rank Langford, Wills has at least two wins over a prime version. If you rank Langford's wins highly, then you have to rank Wills' high too, as ranking Langford's wins high translates to him ranking high, and Wills has plenty of wins over Langford, as well doing much better vs most common opponents. Wherever you rank Langford, Wills has to be higher IMO. And I don't really rate any that high, so I find it hard to fit Langford in a top 20, when I doubt Wills should make it into one. He may have better overall depth than those guys, particularly Vitali, but I'd take their best wins over Langford's. Wills' in ring abilities don't impress me much. Actually, outside of Langford himself, nobody from that era impressed me in a way which would match their station. Like I said, I will play fast and loose with some rankings. Langford and Jeffries/Johnson seem to fall under that category.
Yeah I have Langford number 15 and Wills number 14. I agree with your view on those two in comparison. I don't actually think Johnson did lose to a lot of mediocre guys tbh. His loss to Jeannette was on a foul, his loss to Hart was debatable. So you have to go right the way back to 1901. Klondike was a fight he was winning and gassed, plus he successfully rematched. Him and Griffin were evenly matched and they never really fought once Johnson hit his stride. The Choynski loss is dubious as hell from what I've read.
Not necessarily. I think that Liston would beat the brakes off Marciano head to head but that Marciano's better reign earns him legacy points sufficient to warrant a slightly higher place. I would have Wlad higher than Vander, tho. Probably just switch them.
Jeffries has 22 recorded fights. However his early record and record as champion is incomplete. For example it is written that Jeffries whipped 20 men before facing Fitzsimmons. There are reported KO's over Ed Martin, Frank Childs, and Kid Cotton. On his European championship tour, it is written that he Ko'd 10 men. He also had a similar tour in the USA. Some of these names might still be out there in defunct newspapers.
I've zero doubts about Jeffries being an ATG. I just think Johnson is a bit greater. In terms of pre 30s champs I'd go Johnson Dempsey Jeffries Sullivan Fitzsimmons Tunney Corbett Willard Burns Hart
"1896-05-22 San Francisco Call (that's prior to his first pro fight listed at boxrec) wrote that "Jeffries has fought and whipped twenty men during his short career as a prize-fighter, and is now looking for big game." Taken from another thread. Jeffries as of now has 22 pro wins. Another 20 would make him 44-0 before coming out of retirement.
I've zero doubts about Jeffries being an ATG. I just think Johnson is a bit greater. In terms of pre 30s champs I'd go Johnson Dempsey Jeffries Sullivan Fitzsimmons Tunney Corbett Willard Burns Hart
Some see it that way, others do not . Even the poster Mcvey admits that Jeffries would have beaten Johnson while active from 1899-1905 I see it this way, pre-1930 with a mix of head to head and legacy. Jeffries Demspey Tunney Fitzsimmons Johnson Corbett Sullivan Willard Burns Hart
