Jeff or Johnson-best comp as champ?

I just don't feel confident in picking someone who spent 95% of his fights with a 20+lbs weight advantage, that is huge.

It is a tough decision because on one hand, i think Jeffries would suffer a lot if he fought opponents who could match or surpass him in strength and power with his punishment-taking style. What works against middleweights will probably not work against a hard hitting heavyweight.
On the other side, Jeffries WAS dominant in his era and as MF pointed out, gave rematches to all of them. He missed only one very deserving challenger.
Johnson on the other hand had a few more fights against cruiserweights and even a few heavyweights but he never proved his dominance as Johnson did. These are things that i cannot overlook when ranking them and comparing them to say Holyfield. Who had some bad losses but did face everyone there was unlike them and more often gave away weight rather than having a 10-30lbs weight advantage like them.

 

It is interesting that even 100 years later, comparing Johnson and Jeffries is still a hot subject. All threads go 4 pages in no-time. That should tell you that they are at least close in historic standing as most rivals are.

 

Well put. What we have here is an attempt for payback of sorts. OLD FOGEY should know better. This debate is no contest. He's brining a knife to a gun fight, and runs risk of losing a lot of credibility if he believes that Johnson’s title reign was better.

 

If Jeffries went into the match thinking the fight was fixed, then he could not have trained hard in sprit and Johnson’s win is even hollower. Johnson could have knocked Jeffries out in the 1st you say???? McVey's posts get more entertaining by the day. Not a chance. Watch the fight MCvey, and you will see the first 4 rounds are even, with Johnson being extra cautious not to get hit. DUH.

 

By best competition do you mean the percieved best at the time or the best when evaluated with hindsight?

 

I didnt say Johnson could have finished Jeffries in the 1st ,I merely repeated what Gunboat Smith said in a 1970 taped interview.Where have you seen me give Johnson credit for beating Jeffries? In an earlier post I described Jeff as the original hollow shell.Unlike the rabid hysterical hater that you are ,who in an attempt to boost Jeffries averred that Peter Jackson was in "fine shape" for their fight ,when evryone knows that jackson had been retired ,was finished as a fighter,and was in the first throes of TB.Silly Bollocks!

 

You talk about Old Fogey risking losing his credibility,I venture to say that Old Fogey is one of the most respected posters on this forum.Rest assured you run no risk of losing your credibilty.YOU NEVER HAD ANY TO LOSE!

 

*

 

Both agree and disagree,

I like Old Fogey from the standpoint that he seldomly insults other posters, and often brings valid and interesting historical information to the table. He also creates good threads with pertinant topics to the classic forum such as this one.

On the otherhand, he often tends to engage in heated debates by using hypotheticals or irrelevant comparisons to back up his points, while omitting or ignoring the other half of the issue. At times he will also attempt to climb to higher ground by presenting what he feels might have been or could have been or should have been, rather than sticking to what actually is. I know that I'm not the only one to make these observations. In addtion, he rarely concedes or gives in to the otherside, even when his claims have been addressed, but rather continues to reiterate the same rhetoric over and over. At times, I have given him credit for refuting my disagreements effectively, but he rarely if ever has done the same in reciprocity.

This is not in any way shape or form an attempt to insult or discredit Fogey, as I have already listed his admirable qualities. I can however, appreciate some of the frustatration that other posters have or are currently undergoing, while combating his arguments. Keep in mind though that none of us are perfect, and I myself have been guilty of starting plenty of upheaval.

 

I don't want to drag this topic into a discussion about Fogey, but i've debated a lot of things with him and he's admitted points that he initially didn't support often enough. He's certainly more reasonable than the average poster and always supports his opinions with facts or arguments otherwise. Compared to some posters who scream murder when you say "Ali might just lose one fight against him because of stylistic reasons", he is a breath of fresh air.

 

Fair enough,

and at times I've wittnessed some of his admirable traits,and agree that he's a credit to the forum. There are other times, however when I and several others have countered his arguments with the same or greater degree of validity, yet he continues to defend himself with irrelevant hypotheticals, that support his beliefs, and ignoring facts which don't.

I agree with you though, that we shouldn't turn this into a Fogey thread. If one wants, that can be done in the lounge.

 

Ruhlin was much better than Kaufmann. You've got to be kidding me here, OLD FOGEY. A quick glace of Ruhlin's resume reveals he defeated Choynski, Goddard, Maher, and Sharkey!

Choynski of course Ko'd Johnson. In addition, a past his prime Ruhlin drew with Hart, who of course also defeated Johnson. But's there's more. Jack Johnson took Pete Everett the distance. Ruhlin knocked Everett out in two rounds. So there we have it. A cross reference in three of three fighters that both Johnson and Ruhlin fought has been compared and contrasted. Ruhlin was the better.

Sheez. Can't you see that Johnson was nothing special? I don't make up any results here. Ruhlin vs Johnson to me is pick em' from 1896-1905! Well, maybe I'll go with Ruhlin from 1896-1903, and take Johnson from 1904-1905.

As for Flynn, and Munroe, I don't see much of difference between the two. If you ask me, Munroe was bigger and hit harder, ergo he was the better heavyweight.

 

Dude,

If you were to give me creditability, I'd surely lose some in the eyes of the other posters. As I told you before, it is best for you not to call me out unless you want to wear a clown suit.

If you read what I write, I do beleive OLD FOGEY is one of the better posters on the board. I respect what he has to say. I am just surprised at his opinion on this particular matter. That’s all.

 

This is a truley incredible statment.

The least that you can give Johnson is that he was the best heavyweight on the planet over a period of several years.

 

Jack Johnson's credentials don't particularly impress me. I can certainly give him credit for having a lengthy reign in holding the lineal and colored world titles, but his opposition was pretty weak. He defeated many fighters who were under 6 feet tall, and well below 200 Lbs. He also lost or drew with fighters who were less than impressive. I have a very hard time seeing eye to eye with people who rate him in their top 10.