Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

You brought up Joe Louis. I favor the Joe Louis of 1951 to defeat Brennan, Carpentier, Gibbons, and even Firpo, although Firpo would be dangerous. The issue isn't old Joe Louis versus prime Joe Louis. It is how many opponents can old Joe Louis beat. Just being in your "prime" doesn't mean you can beat old Joe Louis, or old Archie Moore, or old Sugar Ray Robinson, or old Joe Brown, or on and on.

As for Fitz, it is hard for me to see how he did better than Jeff when Jeff KO'd him twice.

The Dempsey analogy only proves that old Dempsey couldn't win any more. This doesn't prove that old Moore, or old Robinson, or old Fitz couldn't win anymore.

It was a real thing for Harold Johnson or Bobo Olson that they couldn't beat the Archie Moore of 1954-1955. Does it matter if Moore was prime or was actually prime in 1943? I can't see the point in the real world.

 

"I consider someone an atg who would be great in every era."

Do you mean great at heavyweight--the unlimited division? Because I would seriously question not only Jeffries, but Dempsey and Marciano, and even Louis or Ali, being the champions of the 21st century heavyweight division, because of the increased size. Even Ali, at 6' 3", would look small small next to the 6' 6" to 6' 9" and 240 to 260 lb. top heavyweights of the modern era.

Or do you mean they would be great p4p against guys close to their own weights?

As for Jeffries, which one of the Dempsey championship opponents prior to Tunney do you favor over him. Willard was old and fat. Firpo very crude. Jeff would have had the same massive size advantage over the others he had over the contenders of his own era.

 

"I already defined all time great."

And I posted because I found your definition lacking in precision and nuance.

 

"how did a fighter do in his time and at his weight class. IMO when a fighter dominated both, he is an atg."

Excellent definition.

 

"So then you don't think that prime Joe Louis would have had any more success with Marciano than the old Joe Louis did."

I never said anything like that. What I said is that the old Joe Louis could still beat a lot of fighters and that is what matters. As for Marciano, if he had beaten a prewar Joe Louis he would probably be considered the greatest fighter ever, period. He didn't and so he isn't.

On Corbett & Jeff & Fitz. Corbett knocked Fitz down and had him in big trouble. Off the newspaper accounts, Jeff was not losing badly but coming on and by the end the fight was close. Still, the points are well taken that Corbett had laid off a lot, although he had laid off prior to defending against Fitz also. Everyone tended to lay off a lot in those days.

"Fitzsimmons . . . hits harder."

This appears to be true. Off the given weights, the weight difference was probably more like 40 than 60 lbs., but still a lot.

"I don't know why the fact that Jeffries frequently held 40+ weight advantages over opponents is overlooked."

Because the heavyweight division is unlimited and a size advantage is just a fact of life, not something to criticize a heavyweight for.

*Just a point I would make. As there was no light-heavyweight division during Jeff's time, the heavyweight division started at 160 lbs. So I don't believe he ever fought anyone who was not in that day a heavyweight.

**Most of Jeff's opponents fell into the 180 to 200 lb. range. So would Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Charles, Marciano, Patterson, etc. Jeff would have had huge weight pulls over most champions prior to 1960.

***I think you and McVey are making some valid criticisms of Jeff's record. I am just stepping in when I feel you are going too far.

 

On time though, no one is great from 1892 to the present day. I don't know of a boxer or anyone else who was even living over such a long period. Any boxer was only great for perhaps 10 to 20 of those years at most.

So is considerably above average in your own era the definition of an atg? if so, I would agree.

It seems to me the better point would be that Jeffries wasn't as much above average in his own era as others were in theirs. I think that is where McVey and you should focus your fire.

 

But this is just speculation, and perhaps odd speculation at that. Jeff couldn't beat Hart and Burns? How many who were there and saw these men fight thought that?

As for Gibbons, whatever. I don't think he had the firepower to hold Jeff off. Jeff would have pounded him like Dempsey did.

 

I've nothing against Jeffries but as GeneTunney said he made his name off the backs of older smaller men and 4 of his 7 defences were soft ones where he could have defended against more worthy opponents. He took advantage of the rampant racisim of his time to duck 3 major black challengers who all challenged him,and he ducked Fitz for 2 years in which the Cornishman was the obvious number one contender.

 

Fair enough. As I said, I think it totally valid to compare his performance in his own era with that of others and where fair criticize.

I am not certain it is fair to include Martin among those ducked (although he certainly would have been regardless) as Martin fell apart w/o sustaining himself as a contender. McVey, and mainly Johnson, were ducked and this counts heavily against Jeff.

In fairness, though, Jeff did fight Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin before becoming champion, which puts him a notch above later white champions who never fought any top black opponents. And yes, Jackson was washed up, but he was still a big name.

on Tunney--he criticized Jeff for making his name off smaller opponents? Tunney didn't fight any bigger men than Jeff did, so as a heavyweight he is wide open to the same criticism, unless you are criticizing a heavyweight for just being big.