Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Ridiculous comment. Agile great fighters in 22 foot rings with a fast canvas can make a ****** out bigger slower hwts.

 

This content is protected

 

Gibberish.

 

This content is protected

 

Being the best available does not make them particularly meritorious and they weren't the best available anyway that is without question incorrect.
On 6th April1900 Jeffries defended his title against 4-2-4 John Finnegan.
Finnegan received his title shot on the back of being ko'd in his last fight by Gus Ruhlin,Ruhlin floored him7 times in that fight.Finnegan was won 4 of his 11 fights his 4 wins were over men with following records

9-13-2
5-3-0
5-2-0
0-0-0
The rest of his record up to that time is 4 draws and 1 no contest and2 losses.
That is in1900, that year Bob Fitzsimmons ko'd both Gus Ruhlin and Tom Sharkey the top 2 contenders in the space of two weeks did he get the title shot? No! He had to wait another 2 years for his chance, by which time he was pushing 40!



Jeffries fought Gus Ruhlin on the 15th of Nov 19O1,Ruhlin had been half killed by Bob Fitsimmons a year earlier and
had only one contest since in which he struggled to a draw with Peter Maher over 6 rds.
In 1901 the standout challenger to Jeffries without any doubt at all was Bob Fitzsimmons who had ko'd both Ruhlin and Sharkey in the space of 2 weeks in1900!Who was Jeffries choice as a challenger Ruhlin! .
Denver Ed Martin was a deserving challenger in1901 ,he had beaten Klondike,Fred Russell,Joe Butler,Fred Byers,Sandy Ferguson,Hank Griffin and Bob Armstrong. Martin was Gus Ruhlin's chief sparring partner and many wondered who would win if they went at it for real.
Another challenger for consideration was Jack Johnson, he had beaten Frank Childs,George Gardner,Joe Kennedy,Martin,Joe Butler,Sandy Ferguson,and Sam McVey. Ruhlin was a poor choice. In1901 , the most deserving challenger was undoubtedly Fitzsimmons, followed by Martin and Johnson.

On14th of Aug 1903 Jeffries defended against Jim Corbett,Corbett's credentials for a title shot? He had been retired for 3 years ,was having eye problems ,had won just 1 fight in the last7 years, against light heavy Kid McCoy and that was widely considered to have been a fake and he was one month off of 37 years old.
By Aug1903 Jack Johnson had beaten:
Klondike
Kennedy
Childs
Russell
Gardner
Martin
McVey
Ferguson
Butler

He stands head and shoulders over every other challenger. Jeffries picked Corbett!

On the 26th Aug 1904 Jeffries defended against Jack Munroe.
Munroe had beaten:
A washed up Tom Sharkey who nevertheless managed to floor him in their 6 rounder. An alcoholic Peter Maher who had won just 1 of his last 6 fights ,[he still floored Munroe] ,and that was a dsq over the welterweight palooka Joe Grim.
Munroe's other wins were over men with the following records.
13-16-2
1-0-0
0-0-0
0-0-0
0-0-0
1-5-1
0-0-0
0-0-0
0-0-0
By Aug 1904 Jack Johnson had beaten
Klondike
Kennedy
Russell
Martin
Gardner
McVey
Butler
Ferguson
Childs
Are you seriously suggesting that Munroe's credentials for a title chance in1904 were superior to Johnsons?
Jim Jeffries had 4 gimmee defences out of a total of 7, the only live challengers he fought were Sharkey ,Fitz and Corbett1!
Please don't insult our intelligence further!

 

To be honest outside of Dempsey and maybe Marciano I don't think any of them would do well in Jeffries era either. Different rules, different training possibilities, different nutrition (checkout how much nutrition changed in the "New Deal era") and so on. It is all speculation.

IMHO you cannot base greatness on speculation. You can only base it on facts. Facts like how did a fighter do in his time and at his weight class. IMO when a fighter dominated both, he is an atg. Jeffries did, so he is one. While h2h comparisons are fun, they are all speculative and I don't think it is fair to rate/judge fighters based on speculation.

 

s

Nope, after Fitz ko'd Ruhlin he walked over to Jeffries sitting ringside and asked," you'll fight me now won't you Jim?" He did the same after the Sharkey fight a week later, Jeffries didn't want any part of him then.
You don't seriously think that after defeating both of the leading contenders by knockout Fitz would then refuse a title chance do you? What planet are you on? Munroe was a built up hype job, Finnegan was a nobody ."Munroe was the contender that the media wanted Jeffries to fight?" Then how come Jeffries lost money on the fight?

He actually said he would not go through with another farce like that because he lost money on the deal. His only credible option for title defence in1904 was with Jack Johnson and he wasn't going there in a million years!!!

For Christ sake face the truth !!!

 

Well, what exactly does "all time great" mean.

Let's look at a couple of athlete's from other sports.

The runner Paavo Nurmi won 9 gold medals in track and field in the 1920's. No one has yet won more in track and field. I didn't look up all his times, but he won the 1500 meter run in 1924 with a time of 3:53.6. The current world record is 3:26. The woman's record is also lower than Nurmi's 1924 time. So it would be wild speculation to assume Nurmi could win modern races. He just didn't run fast enough back then. But compared to the pool of talent of his era--which was significant, a lot of countries took part in the 1924 Olympics--Nurmi stood out so much that looking back he remains a performer of note.

But not all past performances simply look ordinary today. (I understand that non-Americans know little about baseball but the stats should be easy to follow).

Cy Young pitched from 1890 to 1911. The best measure of the effectiveness of a starting pitcher in baseball is if he pitches well enough for his team to win the game. Young won 511 games. The next best total is 417 victories by Walter Johnson (1907-1927). Of those who pitched in my lifetime, Warren Spahn (1942-1965) is tops with 363 victories. This is a huge gap. I don't think any baseball fan can even imagine Young's record for wins ever being broken. (although with the recent example of the Cubs winning the World Series, does anything limit what could happen?) Young's huge total is at least partly due to his pitching in the dead ball era, but his doing so much better than everyone else leaves no way to deny he was a performer of note.

Bottom line here. So Young would be outstanding today while Nurmi would be ordinary? I don't think we can go there. Massive changes in both sports have occurred. The changes in his sport wreck Nurmi's time stats. The changes in his sport put Young's stats beyond reach. But I don't believe we have any more evidence for Young dominating the modern era than we have for Nurmi doing the same. The one thing we know is that they dominated their own eras. The degree that they were outstanding versus their competition is all we can measure.

So for me an all time great is defined by how much better the performer was than the available competition of his own time.

 

If you have two very close fights with Sharkey and some believe you lost one,if you are behind after 22 rds against a comebacking champion,if your face is cut to shreds in a fight that would be stopped today,then I don't see any way you can be considered outstanding from your peers.

 

The athletic analogy doesn't hold water for me.Nurmi was running against men his own age, he didn't enjoy tremendous physical and age advantages, and he wasn't running against men coming back to his sport after an extended retirement.

 

On "prime"

Meaningless term. First place, why was Gibbons "prime" in 1923? He defeated Greb in 1920, but lost to him badly in 1922. Isn't this a possible indication of slipping?

But being in prime doesn't mean anything. What counts is how tough you are to defeat. Would Gene Fullmer look better historically if rather than defeating the past prime Sugar Ray Robinson for the title, he had defeated the prime Bobo Olson? Makes no sense to me as Robinson had just twice KO'd Olson. Looking at Fullmer's career, it is interesting that his only losses after 1955, and toughest fights, were with the aging Robinson and D-ck Tiger. Why? They were better than the "in their prime" young guys. Nor is this a unique situation. Harold Johnson would probably have been light-heavy champion during most of the 1950's if he could only have fought the prime Paul Andrews, Yolande Pompey, Gerhard Hecht, and Yvon Durelle rather than old Archie Moore (37 when he knocked out Johnson in 1954) who was simply tougher to beat whether prime or not.

To cut to the chase, Carpentier and even more Brennan were "prime" while Fitz, despite being the champion, is not? And if he wasn't, so what? Who else besides Jeffries actually defeated Fitz between 1890 and 1905 except on weird fouls in which the guy stretched unconscious on the floor is declared the victor?

Much is being made of Fitz doing better than Jeff against common opponents. But this only proves Fitz was very good. The common opponent argument doesn't mean much when Jeff stopped Fitz twice. It really only makes Fitz a more impressive scalp.

 

My point in that post was general, not applied to Jeffries individually. It is just my view on what makes an all time great.

Your criticism of how much Jeffries dominated his era and competition is a somewhat different issue and I think valid to bring up for discussion.