This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Looking at the top 14: Ali and Louis are out in front. Then there is a tight group consisting of Jeffries, Marciano, Lewis, Liston, Tunney, Tyson and Holmes. There is only ten points difference between Jeffries and Tyson, so the system see's them as having achieved very similar levels of dominance. There's another tight group consisting of Foreman, Frazier, Dempsey and Johnson. The difference (which is not great) between these fighters and the seven preceeding them might be accounted for: in the case of Foreman and Frazier, by their coming along at the same time, as well as in the day of Ali; in Dempsey and Johnson's cases, racial politics influencing them to not fight some of the good black challengers, especially Wills and Langford. Also, Marvin Hart's contentious win over Johnson is databased as softly as possible (a split decision); had Johnson gotten the nod, he might have ended up rating a bit higher; and it might be argued, as well, that Dempsey's points lost to being decisioned by Meehan are excesive, given that the fights were 4-rounders. An interesting case is Fitzsimmons at #14. As it is, he's roughly equidistant from the greats above him and the fine fighters immediately below him. Now, the database whitewashes his first meeting with Sharkey, calling it a no-contest. If, in real life, Fitzsimmons had gotten a KO on his record (which most thought he justly should have recieved), Fitzsimmons score would likely be more inline with that of the greats above him, than with those fine fighters immediately below him.
Yeah, seems odd to see McCoy and Gardner that high. McCoy did have the better of a three fight series with Choyinski, beat a young Ruhlin, beat Maher in 1900, beat an old Goddard, drew with Phil. O'Brien in 1904. He was in the mix of an era that was remembered as a strong one for the heavyweight division.
Thanks for the link, guilalah! Mathematical approaches to all-time lists are always interesting to me. I had never seen tnat one before. :good
How does the equation work? I agree that these approaches can be interesting. ONe of the very interesting things with these lists are that if you ignore the unknowns or abnormalities and look solely at the common perceptions of fighters eg Ali and Louis 1 and 2 or the order of Lewis, Tyson, Frazier, foreman etc, then it does seem that the system has got it right. The thing to consider is that as this takes all biases out of the collating (because it is mathematical), if it gets those right, then maybe the strange things are not as wrong as they would seem. Jeffries at no 3 for example is very arguable. Saying this, what is the actual formula used?
This is the work of the late Mike Paul. Other historians have chipped in to keep his web site up and running. I have archived his work.
Here's the home page http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/ You can follow some of the links at the bottom of the page for explinations of the system. ------- Regarding Jeffries being at #3. First, remember that #3 through #9 are very tightly grouped, all within ten points of one another; there's more distance between Louis at #2 and Jeffries at #3, or Holmes at #9 and Foreman at #10, than between Jeffries (#3) and Holmes (#9). Remember, as well, that the system is basically trying to quantify the extent to which a fighter dominated his contemporaries. Is it a great stretch to regard Jeffries -- after going 6-0 against Corbett, Fitzsimmons and T. Sharkey, and throw in Ruhlin, too -- as being a dominant heavyweight?
Jeffries fought the best of his era both black and white 1899-1903, But Jeffries did not fight Denver Ed Martin, and the papers claimed that Martin was GAURANTEED a shot at jeffries crown after a 15 round win over bob armstrong. 2ndly jeffries retired ducking the best heavyweight of his era, jack johnson. too retire without fighting jack johnson is a disgrace, especially if his last defense was against a journeyman jack munroe INSTEAD of jack johnson. I believe it was the police gazette who claimed jeffries retired for he knew top talent like johnson,mcvea, jeanette, and langford were coming up.
By arguable, i actually meant arguable in favour of Jeffries. I dont think it is totally impossible to have Jeffries at number one. Number 3, particularly if he is very close to number 9 would seem very arguable and in fact I actually find it reasonably difficult to justify anything lower than 9. Jeffries also unified the world title by beating Jackson and, imo, beat every worthwhile challenger there was before he retired. He is extremely underated, mainly due to lack of film on both him and probably more importantly, his opponents.
I disagree, I think we would find these guys have very bareknuckle like styles and would be too primitive too fight in modern eras.
Honestly, Suzy you should know better than this, and you shouldnt sprout rubbish that you know is wrong. AS you are well aware, Jeffries retired in 13 May 1904 , and Johnson was defeated by Hart on 28 March 1905. To make a defence against Johnson after he was just beaten by Hart would have been a disgrace and clear ducking of Hart. So could you please explain to the board what Johnson did in Just over a month to make Jeffries retiring a disgrace. Was it the knockouts he scored over Jim Jeffords, Black Bill or Walter Johnson? Not exactly names to strike fear into an opponent although they were decent fighters. Or maybe it was the No Decision draw he fought with Joe Jeanette. Interestingly, if the fight had taken place and johnson had been found wanting and never went on to capture the title, how would this fight have made jeffries look in relation to Hart, Burns, Root etc. You also forget (quite conveniently) to mention that in 1901, just 4 years earlier Johnson was knocked out cold by Joe Choynski, who could not beat Jeffries. Plus, in 1901 to 1902 Johnson fought a losing series with Hank griffin. Hank had already been knocked out by Jim Jeffries. Plus, you also conveniently forget to mention that Jeffries did in fact knock out the long time reigning coloured champion Peter Jackson, which technically made him the undisputed coloured champion as far back as 1898. He then defeated Bob Armstrong, who was one of the best coloured fighters around. Some fighters may have legacies tarnished by the colour bar, but Jeffries was not one of them. He actually Ko d the coloured champion. Fought two of the top coloured contenders and then after retiring for many years (and he did not stay in shape during his retirment like others did) he actually came out of retirement to fight Jack Johnson. To say he ducked anyone is to be perfectly honest absolutely ridiculous. His ducking of Johnson is nowhere near as bad as Lennox Lewis' ducking of Vladimir Klitchsko and no one seriously thinks that Lennox ducked Vlad. I believe it was also the Police Gazette who claimed that John L Sullivan was not the best fighter in the world? Jeffries Probably did retire because he saw that younger, hungrier fighters were coming up. Just like Marciano, Tunney or Lennox retired because he saw younger, hungrier fighters coming up. Just like virtually every other champion should have done. You are criticising this when it is what a fighter should do. Absolutely ridiculous. The fact remains that when he retired, there was no big money fights at all on the horizon. He had beat every champion that preceded him (even the coloured champion), and there were no standout challengers. You might argue Hart based on his win over Johnson but noone gave him a serious chance against Jeffries. there will always be contenders but none were that much of a standout.
