Greatest heavyweight from Sullivan to Louis?

I don't know the year the following aritcle was written by Australian boxing author & historian, Ray Mitchell, but it was sometime while Louis was still the champion. I thought others might enjoy it. Personally, I can't say that I necessarily disagree with Mitchell's conclusion, at least as far as who was the greatest heavyweight during the reign of Sullivan through Louis. (I had to leave out the first half of the article summarizing each fighter, and giving their ages when they won and lost the title, because you can only post up to 10,000 characters here. The complete article was posted on Cyberboxingzone today):
Greatest Heavyweight Champ – Who Was He? By Australian boxing historian/author Ray Mitchell:
“Whenever boxing fans congregate, the question arises – who was the best heavyweight ever?
The real old-timers will say Bob Fitzsimmons or Corbett. The not quite so old can’t see past Jack Johnson. The younger generation will swear by Dempsey or Tunney and the present generation say Louis would lick them all. The point is that all are, consciously or unconsciously biased and probably no man has seen them all. If we could get a few boxing experts who had seen all the champions and who had an unbiased opinion about them, we could arrive at a fair solution to the question. However, as it is we have to compare them on paper and take into consideration the following points. (1) Style (and how each champion fared against various types); (2) temperament; (3) Stamina; (4) Ability to take a punch; (5) Hitting power; (6) Defence; (7) Tenacity; (8) Ringcraft; (9) Boxing ability.
Who amongst the champions possessed all these points to the nth degree? Not one. Every champion possessed something above the others. Each had most points in varying degrees. Fitzsimmons had ringcraft or caginess above the ordinary; Sullivan and Jeffries were tough and could take terrific punishment; Dempsey was the personification of tenacity; Tunney and Corbett were ace boxers; Johnson was one of the greatest boxers ever, at any weight. Nearly all could hit and could take it. Louis has the perfect ring temperament and is a ring “killer.”
So we have to glance at the record of each champion and note to what degree he possessed all the above points – hw he fared against the hitter, the boxer, the weaver, and take into account his age at winning the title and losing it. Having noted these, compare him with each of the others.

Now, how would Sullivan compare with each of the others? Tunney, for one, would easily defeat him. Remember Sullivan was a slugger, Tunney a heady boxer, who was never knocked out and he beat Dempsey, who was much faster than Sullivan and more deadly. Dempsey, too, would have outslugged Sullivan. Need we go further? Sullivan was not the best.
Next, Corbett. In a 15-round bout he would probably have defeated Jeffries. He was miles in front for over 20 rounds. But Fitz caught up with him in 14 rounds, proving that Corbett could be k.o.’d. Tunney would have outpointed him. “Gentleman” Jim could not have k.o.’d Gene and the latter knew more about boxing than even Corbett – the art had improved with the years.
Dempsey a fast, weaving, devastating style would have been too much for even Corbett. So we eliminate Corbett.
Fitz? This remarkable man began fighting as an amateur in 1880, and had his last pro fight in 1914 – 34 years later. He suffered 5 k.o. defeats, but his first was in 1889, and he was 37. In his prime he could not be knocked out so easily. He beat Corbett, would have been too cagey for Sullivan. Being a better ring general than Jeffries he would probably have outpointed the “Boiler Maker” had he been 5 or ten years younger when he met Jeffries. But Dempsey would have carried too much fire. But while it lasted what a scrap! Tunney would have done to Fitz what Corbett did for 14 rounds and he would not have been caught with a solar-plexus punch. So the greatest was not Fitz.
Jeffries in a fight to a finish may have beaten any or all, with the possible exception of Dempsey. But in these days of 15 rounds he would have been outpointed by Dempsey, Tunney and Louis, at least, because Jeff was not scientific.
Burns was a great light-heavyweight but he was in his prime when defeated by Johnson (Tommy was 27) so we can discard him.
Johnson: A great number of people rate him as the greatest. With 31 k.o.’s in 90 fights, his punch was hard, but was not as hard as Dempsey’s, or Baer’s, so he could not have k.o.’d Tunney, Louis or Dempsey. Could his wonderful defense have kept Dempsey away? I doubt it. Johnson met very few men who weighed as heavy as he and he never met a weaver as fast as “The Manassa Mauler.” Dempsey could always land some terrific punches on the best of them and would have at least outpointed Johnson and may have k.o.’d him – Choynski did it. Tunney, who took Dempsey’s punches and outboxed him, would have outpointed Johnson over 15 rounds. Sorry you Johnson supporters, but “Li’l Arthur” is not the man.
Willard and Carnera can be dismissed together as brawn but no brain. Sharkey was k.o.’d by Dempsey and Carnera while in his prime, so he can be pasted over. Schmeling was k.o.’d by Baer, so leaves out another.
We have Dempsey, Tunney, Baer, Braddock, and Louis to deal with. Braddock was beaten too many times to be considered. Baer could have been the greatest if he had the temperament of Louis. But he was a clown and with this toughness and terrific hitting power, he would have gone down to a good boxer would could take it.
Which leaves Dempsey, Tunney and Louis.
What a fight between Dempsey and Louis! Louis, the perfect machine, but his comparative slow thinking may have overcome by the fast moving Dempsey; and Tunney would have been a thought and a punch in front of him. With all Louis’ great record as a “killer,” he could not have pinned Tunney, although he may have caught Corbett, would have outslugged Sullivan, outpointed Jeffries, Fitz and the lesser fights. A fight between Louis and Johnson would have been disappointing. But Joe, being the aggressor may have won on points. Certainly Johnson could not have k.o.’d him. Perhaps Louis ranks 3rd among the great.
Tunney was a mastermind. He had a deal of confidence in himself and 3 years before he won the title, he outlined a plan whereby Dempsey could be defeated. This was when Jack was in his prime – when he beat Carpentier. Tunney adhered to that plan in 1926 when he beat Dempsey. Tunney was defeated only once in his career – he lost to Greb and he avenged that defeat later. He retired while in his prime and with a very imposing record. Dempsey, when defeated by Tunney, was a little the “other side” of his prime, but even at his best he could not k.o. Brennan and Miske, so the chances are that Tunney, much superior to these could not have been k.o.’d by Dempsey at any part of the latter’s career. The Long Count? Dempsey himself admits that Tunney clearly understood the position and took full advantage of it and could have regained his feet seconds before he did.
Could Dempsey have outpointed Tunney in 1924? No! A boxer will always defeat a fighter, providing he can take it and Tunney could. So there you are fans. I select Tunney as the greatest ever. Do I hear a storm of protest? Well, I will stick my neck out further. Here is how I grade the first ten: 1) Tunney, (2) Dempsey, (3) Louis, (4) Johnson, (5) Fitzsimmons, (6) Corbett, (7) Jeffries (8) Baer, (9) Burns, (10) Sullivan.
Let us hear your opinions please.”