It's getting late to write too much and they are criticisms I understand to an extent. I do think you are applying modern standards to Jeffries though. He fought in a way to outlast and wear down his opposition because of the length of fights. You can't really argue with his success or apply his skills to a modern ring unless you are willing to ask how the others would do in his time, which I would question the relevance of.
Oh yep, I understand the style of the day. Like the bareknuckers going to the body to save their hands for the shots that really mattered. TBH I try and look mostly at achievements and quality of opposition and not so much on skills/ style as I think the former change less over time than the latter esp. when you are comparing fighters from say the turn of the century with post-War fighters. I think its an easier, fairer and better way of doing it. I don't not rank Jeffries because he couldn't hook off the jab.... edit: Sorry for the clumsy negatives in that last sentence, but you get my drift?
With Lewis talent, great record and unifying the Heavyweight Division and not leaving one name off his record he has to be in the top 5. Not many fighters can boast the achievements of Lewis never mind the reign he had in a top division. Two blips on the record which he avenged in brutal fashion really doesn't take much shine off Lewis either.
He always used to bore me to death, I'm genuinely amazed at his KO%, I remember his stinkers with Holyfield and Tua... and taking a shellacking from Bruno for 6 rds doesn't reek of greatness. Bert Sugar knows his stuff.
Guys like Ali,Marciano,Holmes,Louis etc etc werent knocked out as Champions by those caliber of guys though.Yes he avenged them but the fact is they still happened.
It's easy putting it that way but without those losses do you think Lewis would of been dominant for so long? I think Lewis needed those to turn him into the fighter he was the whole way through his career. It was the McCall loss that made Lewis go with Steward and it was the Hasim Rahman loss that made Lewis get himself committed to boxing 100% again. Of course it looks bad when looking over his career but with out those two losses I don't think Lewis would be being talked about like the fighter he is today.
9 is a bit low. I can't remember my list properly. I used to have arguments for why each person was in each place. I think I used to have Lewis at 6 maybe.
ScottRF; Johnson that high?!? Most overrated HW for me, reardless of his power, being stopped by an 180lb Choynski and ducking Langford whilst holding the belt sees him outside the top ten for me. Dempsey gets the same treatment for ducking his main rival for years the same as Johnson did. Defending the title once ever couple of years does not a great champion make (IMO). Johnson looks terrible on film, a choppy right hand and lots of clinching is all he appears to have, even in comparison to his peers (Jeanette Vs Langford for instance) Jeffries; best opposition were past it, same criticism to levelled at Lewis.
Anyway mine (and to think I'm apparently biased towards older fighter atsch) 1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Lewis 4. Foreman 5. Holmes 6. Holyfield 7. Tyson 8. Frazier 9. Marciano 10. Charles 11. Tunney 12. Johnson 13. Langford 14. Dempsey 15. Liston
Top 5? No, not with Tyson, Ali, Foreman, Marciano and Louis having existed. However somewhere in the lower regions of the top 10 is more than reasonable. I voted that this 9th placement is about right. Probably around the Baer / Foreman kinda level.
Regarding ducking, (I assume you are talking Wills for Dempsey), I see it as a product of the era regarding the colour line. It wouldn't sell, promoters wouldn't wont to put it on, and a lot of states wouldn't sanction it. A lot of the Johnson film is late in his career, if we only had the last 5 fights of Ali for example we would be wondering what people were talking about describing him as flashy, fast of hand and foot etc. While some of his early performances were poor, I put more stock in what they do as champion. I actually normally put Holmes third, not sure why I changed my mind this time.
Fair enough, I was actually referring to Greb for Dempsey because of the colour line, which I'm well aware of :good And Johnson did too little as champ to attain the lofty ranking you bestowed on him, if that is your criteria :thumbsup Sporadic defences, smaller guys and let his three best challengers fight each other whilst he held the belt! As for Jeffries, despite his 2x wins over him, I'm not sure I'd rank him over Fitz myself. And as for Johnson looking bad late on in his career, that's fair enough; I've also read a lot of stuff on his earlier fights and it gives similar accounts. Ketchel isn't one of the better 'HWs' of that era either ;-) I will also add that Burns is right in the middle of his prime, and he claimed he was at his best for Jeffries IIRC, hardly Ali-Holmes/Berbick territory is it?