Greatest heavyweight from Sullivan to Louis?

[Cmoyle]

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.”

[janitor]

I think that the authour interprets the following fighters corectly:

Bob Fitzsimmons

Jim Corbett

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Joe Louis

I think he largley misinterprets Sullivan and Jeffries, and indeed Carnera and Willard for what its worth.

I think it is a bit of a leap of faith to have Tunney at No1 given his fairly thin heavyweight resume.

[ChrisPontius]

It's actually interesting how many "old school" historians, or let's say, people that prefer old school fighters, rank Tunney extremely high. Often even beyond any point of a reasonable ranking. Which is interesting, because Tunney's style was everything but old school.

[janitor]

It's actually interesting how many "old school" historians, or let's say, people that prefer old school fighters, rank Tunney extremely high. Often even beyond any point of a reasonable ranking. Which is interesting, because Tunney's style was everything but old school.

It is interesting to note that Jack McAuliffe ranked Tunney at No2 behind only Sullivan.

When comparing him to Jim Corbett he specificaly stated that he was better not because of any superiority of his technique but because he took and gave a punch better.

[ChrisPontius]

It is interesting to note that Jack McAuliffe ranked Tunney at No2 behind only Sullivan.

When comparing him to Jim Corbett he specificaly stated that he was better not because of any superiority of his technique but because he took and gave a punch better.

That sounds fair enough, although Tunney didn't face punchers like Fitz and Jeffries. Well, he fought Dempsey twice, but Dempsey was something old and when he did catch Gene, he nearly had him out. I also think that while he probably hit harder than Corbett, he is not exactly a big puncher so i think this one is pretty irrelevant. No one considers the fact that Holmes hit just a bit harder than Ali an important factor when assessing them with respect to each other.

[sugarkills]

The greatest heavyweight from Sullivan to Louis is Louis of course!

[Mendoza]

I think Tunney is a good bet to out point many old timers, and this includes Johnson, and Louis.

Tunney to me is under valued and under rated these days. Its too bad his resume is thin. We just don't know if he could hold of agressive body punchers such as a prime Dempsey or Jeffries.

To defeat Tunney, I think you need to force him to fight, need quick feet to catch up to him, and some stamina.

Out boxing Tunney would be difficult, though it should be noted that an older Jim Corbett astounded Tunney when they sparred together as older men, and it can be seen on flim.

I think the author misses the mark on Jeffires, as he was not far behind Corbett at all in the first fight, and was 4-0, 4Ko's vs Fitz and Corbett. To put Fitz or Corbett ahead makes little sense.

Most of the fighters, such as Johnson, Dempsey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons felt Jeffries was the best.

Best guess is the author who wrote this probabaly saw Tunney mis-match title fight with down under fighter Tom Henney, and really did not see much of the odler fighters before him.

[Boilermaker]

I think that the authour interprets the following fighters corectly:

Bob Fitzsimmons

Jim Corbett

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Joe Louis

I think he largley misinterprets Sullivan and Jeffries, and indeed Carnera and Willard for what its worth.

I think it is a bit of a leap of faith to have Tunney at No1 given his fairly thin heavyweight resume.

You certainly have to respect his point with regards to Jeffries. The 15 round limit would really hurt him, as he liked to wear fighters down in a longer fight. I agree that he has probably misinterpreted Sullivan, but that is understandable because he probably never saw him fight in his prime and it seems that more weight was given to his older performances when he was clearly past his prime.

Tommy Burns appears to be reasonably well rated compared to today. Tunney is the obvious other, but i think that he makes a fair comparison. The commonly held perception today is that he could not take a punch. But there is no evidence of this. He certainly took Dempsey's best punch. He had no problem with taking any punch he ever seen. In fact, there is no evidence that Tunney's chin is anything but first class. Certainly it is a lot more proven than Cassius Clay's was when he stopped fighting the first time.

If Tunneys chin/heart was as good or better than Clay/Ali's later proved to be, then i think that Gene Tunney actually has a very good argument to be the no 1 heavy of the time and even to carry that title to this present day. Without knocking him cold or catching him clean, there isnt really anyone who you would favour to outbox him. One thing is for sure, he will always hold the one and only true Marquis of Queensbury lineal heavyweight champion, and no one can ever take that away from him.

[SuzieQ49]

w/e

[robert ungurean]

For me its Dempsey no question followed by Tunney.

[SuzieQ49]

For me its Dempsey no question followed by Tunney.

Tunney over jack johnson and joe louis?

[sugarkills]

For me its Dempsey no question followed by Tunney.

Both would've been knocked out against a prime Louis.

[Loewe]

Well, I think he bases his assumption on too much speculation. H2h lists are all only a matter of oppinion. For example, the only two guys I see beating Johnson of all those guys are Louis and Tunney. Also it seems he is a bit biased. He ignores that Dempsey was old against Tunney but excuses Fitzsimmons somewhat against Jeffries because of age. He also mentions Johnson´s defeats to the hands of Choynski when he was very green but does not mention his win over Fitz when it should count as much as the Choynski defeat by his standard. Also, why is he ignoring Hart but mentions Burns, Willard, Carnera?

For me a list would look similar to this:
tier 1: Louis
tier 2: Johnson, Jeffries
(tier 3: Wills)
tier 4: Dempsey, Schmeling
tier 5: (Langford,) Corbett
tier 6: Fitzsimmons
tier 7: Tunney, Sharkey
tier 8: Sullivan

[ChrisPontius]

Well, I think he bases his assumption on too much speculation. H2h lists are all only a matter of oppinion. For example, the only two guys I see beating Johnson of all those guys are Louis and Tunney. Also it seems he is a bit biased. He ignores that Dempsey was old against Tunney but excuses Fitzsimmons somewhat against Jeffries because of age. He also mentions Johnson´s defeats to the hands of Choynski when he was very green but does not mention his win over Fitz when it should count as much as the Choynski defeat by his standard. Also, why is he ignoring Hart but mentions Burns, Willard, Carnera?

For me a list would look similar to this:
tier 1: Louis
tier 2: Johnson, Jeffries
(tier 3: Wills)
tier 4: Dempsey, Schmeling
tier 5: (Langford,) Corbett
tier 6: Fitzsimmons
tier 7: Tunney, Sharkey
tier 8: Sullivan

Thank God someone finally mentioned Wills in there.

[Loewe]

Thank God someone finally mentioned Wills in there.

When it is about champs he shouldn´t be mentioned. He was never champ, like Langford. That´s why I put them in brackets.

[janitor]

You certainly have to respect his point with regards to Jeffries. The 15 round limit would really hurt him, as he liked to wear fighters down in a longer fight.

I am not sure it would at his peak.

Jeffries continued to improve right up to the point where he retired, particularly in terms of boxing and finishing ability. The prime Jeffries was not the version that won the title or the version that went 23 rounds with Corbett. He started his title reign with little more than his physical assets and gradualy refined his technique untill by the time of the second Corbett fight he was the ultimate fighting machine.

By the latter fights of his career he was not needing 15 rounds to put people away or getting outboxed by anybody.

If we look at the last 3-4 years of Jeffries title reign:

Joe Kennedy 2 rounds

Gus Rhulin 5 rounds

Bob Fitzsimmopns 8 rounds

Jim Corbett 10 rounds

Jack Munroe 2 rounds

Clearly the 15 round limit would not have helped these guys.

[ChrisPontius]

When it is about champs he shouldn´t be mentioned. He was never champ, like Langford. That´s why I put them in brackets.

Well it was about greatest heavyweights, not necessarily champions.

[robert ungurean]

Tunney over jack johnson and joe louis?
I thought Louis was excluded.
If thats the case:
Dempsey
Louis
Tunney

[Mendoza]

I am not sure it would at his peak.

Jeffries continued to improve right up to the point where he retired, particularly in terms of boxing and finishing ability. The prime Jeffries was not the version that won the title or the version that went 23 rounds with Corbett. He started his title reign with little more than his physical assets and gradualy refined his technique untill by the time of the second Corbett fight he was the ultimate fighting machine.

By the latter fights of his career he was not needing 15 rounds to put people away or getting outboxed by anybody.

If we look at the last 3-4 years of Jeffries title reign:

Joe Kennedy 2 rounds

Gus Rhulin 5 rounds

Bob Fitzsimmopns 8 rounds

Jim Corbett 10 rounds

Jack Munroe 2 rounds

Clearly the 15 round limit would not have helped these guys.

This is how I see it. Jeffries got better as his career went on. Some say we never saw the best version of Ali from 1967-1969, it is plausible that Jeffries never peaked, and would have been even better had he not retired in the years of 1905-1908.

[Loewe]

Well it was about greatest heavyweights, not necessarily champions.

Mr. Know-it-all :bart

[McGrain]

1 - Louis
2 - Johnson
3 - Jeffries
4 - Wills
5 - Dempsey
6 - Jackson
7 - Tunney

[Maxmomer]

Louis, Dempsey, Johnson, Wills, Tunney.

[groove]

Dempsey was past his peak when he fought Tunney but both fighters are underrated. I think johnson, dempsey, louis and tunney would all be at the top.

[Loewe]

Dempsey was past his peak when he fought Tunney but both fighters are underrated. I think johnson, dempsey, louis and tunney would all be at the top.

No Wills? No Jeffries? I think both should be above Dempsey and especially Tunney who just has a too thin resume to be considered a great hw.

[Holmes' Jab]

Johnson is the best between Sullivan and Louis (providing the later isn't included).

[Holmes' Jab]

Dempsey above Tunney on the all-time list, maybe, but I firmly believe Tunney decisions any version of Dempsey.

[mcvey]

I am not sure it would at his peak.

Jeffries continued to improve right up to the point where he retired, particularly in terms of boxing and finishing ability. The prime Jeffries was not the version that won the title or the version that went 23 rounds with Corbett. He started his title reign with little more than his physical assets and gradualy refined his technique untill by the time of the second Corbett fight he was the ultimate fighting machine.

By the latter fights of his career he was not needing 15 rounds to put people away or getting outboxed by anybody.

If we look at the last 3-4 years of Jeffries title reign:

Joe Kennedy 2 rounds

Gus Rhulin 5 rounds

Bob Fitzsimmopns 8 rounds

Jim Corbett 10 rounds

Jack Munroe 2 rounds

Clearly the 15 round limit would not have helped these guys.
Fitz and Corbett were old,Kennedy was kod early twice before meeting Jeffries Maher did him in 2 rds and Van Buskirk in his first fight kod him ,he was kod in 4 rds a year after Jeffries stopped him by Jack Johnson ,Munro was nothing.Jeffries was probably in his prime when he retired ,but I think you read too much into him koing an over 40 Fitz and a Corbett who was well into his 30s.Ruhlin had been kod a year before meeting Jeffries in 6 rds by Fitz .I think the earlier poster was correct ,Jeffries ,against the better fighters needed time to wear them down 15 rds would not have favoured him at any stage of his career.

[groove]

No Wills? No Jeffries? I think both should be above Dempsey and especially Tunney who just has a too thin resume to be considered a great hw.

No Tunney has the right boxing style and ring intelligence to beat bigger or harder hitting fighters. Dempsey at his peak would not be underdog against any. Johnson is great, louis is proven great. So they are my top 4. Wills could be a wild card as i don't know a great deal about him or his style of boxing? the boxers who hit and move i favor more against the bigger heavies. the lighter swarmers could end up smashed to pieces like frazier did against foreman.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Fitz and Corbett were old

They were still the best oponents available at the time. Certainly Fitz was coming off a spectacular destruction of Jack Sharkey and was the best challenger around.

Kennedy was kod early twice before meeting Jeffries Maher did him in 2 rds and Van Buskirk in his first fight kod him ,he was kod in 4 rds a year after Jeffries stopped him by Jack Johnson

So around this stage of his career the only other person to KO him early was the hardest puncher of the era (Maher)

Munro was nothing.

Harsh.

Munroe was at least a servicable contender and that was the only stopage loss of his career.

Jeffries was probably in his prime when he retired ,but I think you read too much into him koing an over 40 Fitz and a Corbett who was well into his 30s.Ruhlin had been kod a year before meeting Jeffries in 6 rds by Fitz .I think the earlier poster was correct ,Jeffries ,against the better fighters needed time to wear them down 15 rds would not have favoured him at any stage of his career.

My contention is that Jeffries was verry green when he initialy fought for the title and continued to improve, particularly in terms of boxing and finishing ability.

[Maxmomer]

No Wills? No Jeffries? I think both should be above Dempsey and especially Tunney who just has a too thin resume to be considered a great hw.

Jeffries above Dempsey? Why?

[SuzieQ49]

They were still the best oponents available at the time. Certainly Fitz was coming off a spectacular destruction of Jack Sharkey and was the best challenger around.




better than jack johnson, denver ed martin, and sam mcvea?


Harsh.

Munroe was at least a servicable contender and that was the only stopage loss of his career.



not that harsh, just like tunney with heeney......jeffries wasted away a oppertunity to raise his legacy by using up his last resources on an unknown joke of a contender jack munroe. With Two Top heavyweight contenders out there jack johnson denver ed martin.....instead jeffries fought a weak non dangerous jack munroe. its a shame.


Imagine rocky marciano not fighting archie moore in his last title defense.......but retiring after fighting don cockell. Imagine how bad his title reign would look? thats basically what jeffries did.

[janitor]

[quote=SuzieQ49]better than jack johnson, denver ed martin, and sam mcvea?


If I remember the timeline corectly then Johnson and McVea were not in the frame untill somewhat after the second Fitzsimmons fight.

Martin was chasing a title shot at the time and took on Bob Armstrong on the undercard of this fight to try to force the issue. I think Fitz had a stronger claim at the time.


not that harsh, just like tunney with heeney......jeffries wasted away a oppertunity to raise his legacy by using up his last resources on an unknown joke of a contender jack munroe. With Two Top heavyweight contenders out there jack johnson denver ed martin.....instead jeffries fought a weak non dangerous jack munroe. its a shame.


I dont dispute that there were better challengers out there at the time but I dont think that Munroe exactly was a joke as a challenger.

I can alow a champion a soft title fight if he meets the best challengers out there. Jeffries basicaly fought all the deserving white challengers then retired. His failure to fight black chalengers dose hurt his legacy but on the other hand he was the first gloved champion to regularly defend the title against top contenders. Compared to what had gone before (Corbett and Fitzsimmons) he set new standards.

[Boilermaker]

[quote]


If I remember the timeline corectly then Johnson and McVea were not in the frame untill somewhat after the second Fitzsimmons fight.

Martin was chasing a title shot at the time and took on Bob Armstrong on the undercard of this fight to try to force the issue. I think Fitz had a stronger claim at the time.



I dont dispute that there were better challengers out there at the time but I dont think that Munroe exactly was a joke as a challenger.

I can alow a champion a soft title fight if he meets the best challengers out there. Jeffries basicaly fought all the deserving white challengers then retired. His failure to fight black chalengers dose hurt his legacy but on the other hand he was the first gloved champion to regularly defend the title against top contenders. Compared to what had gone before (Corbett and Fitzsimmons) he set new standards.

That isnt actually strictly correct. Jeffries fought and knocked out the coloured champion. He didnt fight Johnson at the end of his reign. But Johnson didnt deserve a title shot. Johnson blew that chance when he lost a decision to Marvin Hart. After jeffries retired, the likes of Langford, McVey and Johnson started asserting superiority over the white fighters of the time, but prior to his retirement, the best fighters were the white fighters across the board. When Jeffries retired, Marvin Hart was clearly higher rated than Johnson and if Jeffries had by passed him to fight Johnson, he would be rightfully ridiculed. You dont get a title shot by losing a controversial fight. Winning one, maybe but not losing one. He couldnt exactly defend against Langford or the others because that too would have been laughable since they had just been outclassed by Johnson. His next defence would have been Marvin Hart and after that, probably Tommy Burns. It would not have been until here that Johnson could start to lay a reasonable claim, particularly if had fought and beat burns like he really did. A win over Marvin Hart (who i cannot for the life of me understand why hart didnt get a superfight against Jack Johnson) would have also been helpful. But as it stands, without hindsight, and the fact that Johnson and others happen to be black, there is no real reason at all to criticise Jeffries title reign or downgrade it. He fought the best that there was .

Someone mentioned Marciano, so it would be quite interesting to compare Jeffries opposition to the equivalent fighters of the marciano era.

Hank Griffin - was getting older but a good contender. Probably would have been the equivalent of Marciano debuting against say a faded Elmer Ray. Hank wasnt as good as Elmer, but wasnt as faded as Elmer would have been if Rocky debuted against him in 1947. Rocky would do well to win this fight against hank. and never really faced a test this early that is even remotely comparable.

The next two main fights were 2 draws with Gus Ruhlin and Joe Choynski. Jeffries got the better of the two apparently, but they were close fights. if this scoring was used by Marciano, it is quite likely that he may have had 2 or 3 draws. In his fights that went the 10 rounds. I am not sure who these two would have been the equivalent of in Marcianos time. Maybe say Joey Maxim for Choynski and Roland La Starza for Ruhlin. They would have been similarly ranked. Rocky clearly never fought someone as well credentialed at Choynski before winning the title and Choynski in particular would have been a good win for Marciano to have under his belt.

The next two names for Jeffries are Joe Goddard and Peter Jackson. JAckson was very old and it means nothing in the context of jackson's career, but it is still a good name, it would be the equivalent of Rocky adding a second win over a fading JOe Louis or perhaps if we could change time a little bit and give him a win prior to winning the title over a comebacking Jack Johnson (from the era shortly after the Willard fight). These fighters were considered by many to be the best ever at the time, they looked to be in decent shape, even though in reality they were not. Louis is obviously a slightly better win. Joe Goddard was a win against one of the best if not the best contender at the time. Definitely as good or better than say a Nino Valdes who rocky didnt fight. Or to keep it a bit even, he was the equivalent of Rockys Rex Layne win. I think he has a better record than both but they are very similar in that both were good contenders.

Next we move to the two Tom Sharkey fights. Sharkey was probably the equivalent of the two La Starza fights that Rocky had. Id have thought that Sharkey is thought to be the better fighter than la starza, but in fairness, both had a similar ranking.

Next to consider is the two fitzsimmons fights and the two Corbett fights. Both were knockout victories. They are similar to Rockys fights with Walcott and Charles in that they involved to great champions, both who were getting older, but both of whom were still capable of putting in excellent performances. As a comparison, again, you would consider that Corbett and Fitz were a little higher ranked than Walcott and Charles, but it is reasonably close and similar wins.

Jeffries defence against Monroe, was pretty similar to Rockys defence against Cockell, in that they were both underated fighters but neither was the best fighter or contender in the world despite what "rankings" might or might not say.

this leaves rocky with having a title defence advantage by defending against Archie Moore. The closest Jeffries has to this win is his defeat of Gus Ruhlin or Bob Armstrong. I think that Archie is probably higher ranked than both at the time.

Looking objectively, overall at both reigns they are very, very similar. Both were the only fighters to ever retire as undefeated heavyweight champion of the world. Both had reasonably short reigns where they were considered the best fighter in the world and they both cleaned out their division. The main difference was that when Jeffries retired, an all time great took over the belt and jeffries came out of retirement to fight him in a brave but losing effort. When the same happened to Marciano, he enlisted the help of computer to beat Muhammed Ali. With Due respect to Johnson, i get the feeling that if he fought a computer fight against Johnson (or whatever similar simulator was available, maybe a title fight boxing game with dice), he would have probably knocked out Johnson.

I think that if a Rocky Marciano fan criticises Jeffries legacy as being not in the same league as Marciano's they are being unreasonable.

[Boilermaker]

One other thing for everyone jumping up and down about Joe Louis being beaten, it needs to be remembered that we dont know when this article is from. If it was early in his title reign, he had not long been knocked out by Schmelling, who wasnt that great (in an ATG sense), so there is every reason that he would be seen as having a very shaky claim as the best ever, in fact unless it was well into his reign, i would have thought that he wouldnt have had much of a claim at all, other than with those that use the "Evolution" theory.

[SuzieQ49]

I think that if a Rocky Marciano fan criticises Jeffries legacy as being not in the same league as Marciano's they are being unreasonable.


All I am saying is jeffries should have fought jack johnson before retiring. johnson was the best out there, and the public was clammoring for it from the books and articles I have read. Jeffries not fighting johnson(who was top rated and called him out) is like marciano retirng rather than fighting # 1 contender archie moore who called out marciano many times. i would have crucified marciano had he not taken on moore. i mean jeff did eventually have the guts to get in the ring vs a prime johnson in 1910, but jeff certainly coule have answered alot of questions about his legacy by taking on johnson in 1905.

btw i do give jeffries credit for taking on top black contenders hank griffin and bob armstrong. fitz and dempsey and tunney never fought black contenders.

[Boilermaker]

All I am saying is jeffries should have fought jack johnson before retiring. johnson was the best out there, and the public was clammoring for it from the books and articles I have read. Jeffries not fighting johnson(who was top rated and called him out) is like marciano retirng rather than fighting # 1 contender archie moore who called out marciano many times. i would have crucified marciano had he not taken on moore. i mean jeff did eventually have the guts to get in the ring vs a prime johnson in 1910, but jeff certainly coule have answered alot of questions about his legacy by taking on johnson in 1905.

btw i do give jeffries credit for taking on top black contenders hank griffin and bob armstrong. fitz and dempsey and tunney never fought black contenders.

JOhnson's position against Jeffries was almost the same as Rocky Marcianos position against Nino Valdes. Both were the top contender at one stage. Both lost a fight to another fighter when they were the top contender. As a result neither got a shot against the prime Champion. the difference is that in Johnson's case, he improved and went on to earn a championship whereas Valdes wasnt good enough. In hindsight the Jeffries Johnson bout should have been made, but at the time even though it could have legitimately be made, Johnson was only really one of 3 or 4 guys that Jeffries could have defended against and it would not have been that big a match. Certainly it would have been no where near the box office draw that it became all of those years later.

[Mendoza]

All I am saying is jeffries should have fought jack johnson before retiring. johnson was the best out there, and the public was clammoring for it from the books and articles I have read. Jeffries not fighting johnson(who was top rated and called him out) is like marciano retirng rather than fighting # 1 contender archie moore who called out marciano many times. i would have crucified marciano had he not taken on moore. i mean jeff did eventually have the guts to get in the ring vs a prime johnson in 1910, but jeff certainly coule have answered alot of questions about his legacy by taking on johnson in 1905.

btw i do give jeffries credit for taking on top black contenders hank griffin and bob armstrong. fitz and dempsey and tunney never fought black contenders.

The money and promoters never offered a 1898-1905 between Jeffries and Johnson. Johnson suffered set back losses to Klondike, Choynski, Griffin, and Hart during these years.

I do think Johnson was the #1 guy out there for a small window of time from the later half of 1903 until the Hart fight, but he blew it in the Hart fight with a lousy performance. Had Johnson knocked Hart out, the interest level and money might have been up.

PS: Fitz and Dempsey fought black contenders. It is possible that Jeffries has an early KO wins over top black contneders Ed Martin, Frank Childs, and Kid Cotton as reported by news papers. The trouble is many news papers went bankrupt, and tracking down the primary sources is not easy.

[mcvey]

[quote]

They were still the best oponents available at the time. Certainly Fitz was coming off a spectacular destruction of Jack Sharkey and was the best challenger around.



So around this stage of his career the only other person to KO him early was the hardest puncher of the era (Maher)



Harsh.

Munroe was at least a servicable contender and that was the only stopage loss of his career.



My contention is that Jeffries was verry green when he initialy fought for the title and continued to improve, particularly in terms of boxing and finishing ability.
Jeffries was coming off a spectacular destruction of Tom Sharkey[you said Jack ,but we know who you meant].Hardly "coming off" ,that fight was 2 years earlier and Fitz hadnt fought since.Kennedy "the only person to ko him at this stage in his career?" Well he only had 13 fights in total,he had 11 fights when he met Jeffries 5 wins 2 draws ,3 losses 2 by ko and 1 a dsq,when he met Jefreis he was as much a novice as Jeffries.