My main issue is with Jeffries being ranked so highly. Yes he was dominant, but he was in every instance the bigger man and in most fights the much bigger man. Some of his early work is impressive like his victories over Ruhlin and draw with Choynski, a much more experienced fighter, but Ruhlin weighed closer to 190 than the 200 boxrec have him listed as, and Choynksi although a big hitter, was nearing the end and by modern standards a super middleweight! Even so Choynski bust him up. The Ruhlin win was good, but the draw with Choynski says more about Choynski than it does about "The Boilermaker." Then there are the fights with Sharkey. By all accounts epics that showcased toughness, heart and determination. The problem was that Sharkey was a small cruiserweight by today's standards and Jeffries was a full-fledged heavyweight. Again, doesn't it say more about Sharkey than it does about Jeffries? I think so.
I agree with this. Do you have a rundown of how Greb did against opponents in common with Dempsey? I keep meaning to do it but i'm kind of hoping you will spare me the trouble
Generally, I would agree that the people on the list belong on the list. None impress me as undeserving. I can't think of a name which obviously should be here but isn't. I agree with your top three. Johnson is about where he should be. Jeff is also a stong top ten candidate. Many rate Dempsey this high and I must respect that, but the case for him is a bit shakey as he didn't fight Wills or Greb and lost to Tunney. Tunney was a great lightheavy, but didn't do enough at heavy to warrent a top ten rating. Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, and Liston should move up a few notches in my judgement, and Wills should be at least in the top fifteen.
There are seven major opponents I noticed. 1. Miske--Dempsey won 2 with 1 draw. So did Greb. 2. Gibbons--Dempsey won in 15 in 1923. Greb won 2 and lost 2, but lost to a younger Gibbons. Greb beat Gibbons in 1922. 3. Levinsky--Dempsey won 1 bout by KO. Greb beat Levinsky all 6 times he faced him. 4. Meehan--Dempsey had 1 win, two losses, and 2 draws in five fights. Greb beat him twice. 5. Gunboat Smith--Dempsey beat him twice, once by KO. So did Greb. 6. Bill Brennan--Dempsey KO'd him twice. Greb beat him four times. 7. Gene Tunney--Dempsey lost to him twice. Greb beat him once, lost to him three times, and drew once. One of Greb's losses was very close. Dempsey, of course, had the long count in the second fight. Summation--Greb beat all 7 at least once. He was clearly better than five of them, split with Gibbons, but was better than Gibbons in the 1920's, and lost a razor close series to Tunney. He went 19-5-2 against these common opponents. Dempsey was also clearly better than five of these men, but lost his two fights with Tunney and was edged in the series by Meehan. The only common foe he did better against was Gibbons, with a victory while Greb split four bouts, but Greb had established superiority over Gibbons before Dempsey fought him. Dempsey was 9-4-3 against these common opponents.
Theres a lot of old timers far to high up and a lot of the modern fighters far to low, just my opinion though.
Thank you again for the many comments, which I will try to address in about a dozen days. I do think that Sullivan's longevity was at least pretty good. I strongly suspect that, once Billy Madden straightened out his punches in mid-1881, he was the worlds outstanding heavyweight. And at the time of the Kilrain fight he was likely, with Jackson, one of the two best. So, even by very strict standards, that's an eight-year span. As well, he was looked upon as an up and coming phenom by atleast 1879. Sullivan did have a period where he seemed to 'loose his groove' for a while -- I'm thinking of the broken arm against Cardiff, the draw with Mitchell (though Sullivan had most of the knockdowns and throws -- I think he would have squashed Mitchell (again) in a Queensbury), and becoming critically ill. I said squashed Mitchell again .... Sullivan-Mitchell I, Mitchell was getting clobbered when the police stopped the fight, and I've never heard anyone claim that Sullivan was in danger at any point. You must also remember that, during fights where police were in attendance, the fighters would risk arrest if the fight was taken to the point of a KO. If you read Pollack, you'll see that, for example, the Burke fight was obviously restrained from having a KO outcome; similarly, in the McCaffrey fight, several sources comment that Sullivan at a number of points did not press an advantage. I very highly recommend all of Pollack's books, in part because they give a great sense of the legal state of boxing at that time.
Here's another way of representing my list Louis, Ali Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano Sullivan, Jeffries Tunney Frazier, Holmes Holyfield, Lewis Liston, Foreman, Tyson Fitzsimmons, Charles Jackson, Corbett, Langford, Walcott Bowe Wills, Schmeling J. Sharkey, M. Baer, and possibly others That is to say, there are certain fighters I regard as being virtually on the same level.
Sullivan does have a case for top ten imo. Most people talk about the Jackson stuff, and his 1890's run as rating them, but people forget that in the 1880's, Sullivan's prime years, John L was the man, He mostly clobber the divsion, Got drunk, took a 3 year break, fought Kilrain, beat him, took other year or so off, fought Corbett, and lost. Jackson came at the end of Sullivan's run, and loseing to Jackson at that stage should not hurt him, as did Tyson loseing to Lewis, or Louis loseing Marciano. Sullivan had 8 years of high active status, and than he just started slacking off, fighting about evey 3 years or so. Dempsey started doing that after a year of winning the title, Sullivan at least gave us good 8 years.
The draw with Choynski was a bad call. Jeffries had him down 3 times, and Choynski ran the 2nd half of the fight. Choynski was the name fighter then, Jeffries was the unknown. Perhaps that and the rules of the time is why it was called a draw. If Sharkey was too small, then so was Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney and others who were within say 8 pounds of the Tom Sharkey who meet Jeffries also too small? One can not have it both ways. It is my observation that punchers have a much easier time vs bigger and slower fighters, but have a somewhat harder time catching up to smaller / quicker boxer. The reason Choyski did as well was Jeffries lack of experience, and Choynski being a very fast fighter. Even the 1910 clips of Choyhski show he moved very well.
Kilrain was not among the best elite in the 1880's-1890's. Certainly Corbett, Jackson, and Slavin ( Slaivn defeated Kirain much faster than Sullivan ) were better. I could argue Goddard was even with or better than Kilrain as well. Yet, this is Sullivan's best win. Its a good win, but hanging your hat here means you missed some opportunites...even in a weak era. Sullivan and Kilrain were closely matched until the very end. In addition, who says Sullivan was past his peak when this matched happened? Sullivan was past it vs Corbett for sure, but vs Kirain? Do you have a source that says this? In closing, Sullivan vs Slavin could have been made. Richard Fox offered the match, Sullivan refused.
Seems like you're not giving head-to-head and skillset much weight to rank the fighters.. Do you only look at legacy and title reigns ? Why is Tunney so high ? Why are Lewis, Liston, Foreman and Tyson so low ? Head-to-head they could destroy the likes of Marciano, Frazier and Sullivan who are ranked higher.
Mendoza, my point was that Jeffries as a much larger man in most his fights had a terrific advantage. In attrition fights like the bouts against Sharkey Jeff struggled against a guy outweighed by 20-30 pounds. Any modern heavyweight who fought a cruiserweight and had such a torrid time would get no end of bad press. I can accept the Choynski affair for what it is: a tough experienced guy baffling a young inexperienced fighter but ultimately being worn down by the much larger man. But Choynski was still merely a super middle by today's standards. Ditto Fitzsimmons. Both men eventually were worn down by Jeffries' natural size and strength advantages. Jeff deserves his accolades, but modern heavies fight guys thier own size, or close enough. He didn't, and also had the benefit of bouts scheduled for 20 or more rounds, which suited him as it allowed his sheer size to wear down smaller fighters, so I have a hard time ranking him so highly.