If so, then why? I for one, don't. His best wins are over Jim Corbett (33 and 36 years old), Peter Jackson (36 years old) and Bob Fitzsimmons (37 and 39 years old). In the first Corbett fight, Corbett utterly dominated Jeffries. Newspaper reports say that Jeffries looked like a total beginner and had Corbett been prime (he was 33 and hadn't won a fight in 6 years nor been in the ring in 1.5 years). In the second Fitzsimmons fight, Jeffries was getting majorly outclassed. Cuts on both cheeks and a horribly busted nose that bled profusely. Even just 20 or 30 years later that fight would have been stopped in Fitz's favor. In my opinion prime versions of these fighters (aside from maybe Jackson) would have stopped or seriously outclassed Jeffries. His skills obviously aren't there and his punching power is overrated. I commend him for his heart and will to win but he took advantage of guys that were coming out of long layoffs and that were old.
From an Historical perspective, and doing what you need to do to win a title and maintain the strap around your waist... absolutely. You can only be as good as your era, and he did what he needed to do. Now H2H, he's not an ATG for me, and decisively so.
H2H there is no way to determine. What I can say is that close examination of the available film footage is very impressive. I'd favor prime Jeffries over most any former hwt champion in a 20 plus round fight. Of course he is an ATG. That was determined over 100 years ago by those who watched him live.
Let me put it this way, from a h2h perspective, there more unimpressive tings on film than there is of impressive things imo.
I disagree. The more clear the footage the better Jeffries looks. He looks incredibly good in the training footage and surprise it's the best film we have of him. Experts of his time called him an ATG. Who are any of us to disagree? They saw him in person, live. We will never have that opportunity and as such our viewpoint is horribly tainted. Compounded by the fact we are looking back through modern eyes neglectful of all the nuances of living and fighting in that time period.
If I had only seen Sullivan, Corbett, and Fitz as prior champion then I would call him an atg too considering he knocked out 2/3 of all past champions.
As I said, I give him great for what he did in his own time, he did about all you could (though he also drew the color line). So I have no issue there, he fought what was put in front of him and came out on top almost every time. What you seem to be missing, when you talk about what other writers said about him then, they could only go by what they had seen up till then. As you know, that is a very limited perspective, and there unquestionably wasn't as many fighters in history then as there is now. If writers could live to be over a 100, and saw Jeffries, and were still ticking today and said that, sure, that would mean a lot. They weren't. It's clear that over time, the writers who were there and even lived till the 40's and 50's had already started to lower his stock, having seen MORE fighters. It's without question then, if they continued to see more and more, he would've continued to slip. That is the huge elephant in the room when you talk about what writers said about him in his own time.
No not really. There were writers who lived well into the 20th century who saw Jeffries and still considered him an ATG. The point YOU miss is that ATG characteristics do not change over time. Jeffries exhibited the same fortitude exemplary of an ATG fighter as did Marciano 50 years later.
By today's standards Jeffries was not a big heavy really, 6 foot 2 and around 220 but back then was considered a giant. He could take a lot of punishment and was popular as a sparring partner for the leading guys back then. He won the title in just his 13 th fight which is a achievement. He made seven defences including Fitz, sharkey and Corbett then retired undefeated. He then comes back to meet johnson and lasted in to the 15 th. Going by all that and judging him by his times I'd say you could class him as a ATG. I have him for the era, below johnson and dempsey but above burns, hart, willard and Fitz.
I consider someone an atg who would be great in every era. Jeffries would not fair well in the Louis era, Dempsey era, Marciano era, Ali era, Tyson era, Lewis era. Without a shadow of a doubt in my mind.
Training footage ,throwing his useless brother around.Those experts at the time had only three predecessors to compare him with. The only film of Jeffries in action in which his is pro-active is the blurry Ruhlin fight where he stalks his man, chin tucked into his shoulder, he look horribly open to a right hand,and Ruhlin is clearly the speedier of the two. Jeffries was a very tough man and disdained to react to punches, relying on his durability to gradually wear down his smaller opponents. That would not be a good plan against modern super heavies who have real power. In his era he was a giant feasting on lightheavies and cruisers . Today he would be the little guy .
He was a revelation for his time, the first quality big man,and he enjoyed size disparities that today would seem ridiculous,plus in 4 of his major fights he was taking on significantly older men that had been inactive.Great for his time but I don't think he would adapt well to later eras.
