Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

I see what you are saying but Jeffries did knockdown everyone he fought save Johnson....Jeffries is probably the of king of 25 rounders or more...near great heavy IMO..thanks

 

No. Jeffries was and is an ATG. It has already been written in history.

 

This content is protected

 

Jeffries beat the best competition of his time except Johnson.
Dempsey beat the best competition of his time except Wills and Greb.

Both did nearly everything that could be asked of them. Both were seen as the standout heavyweights of their time. Which other heavyweights were seen similarly? Sullivan, Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Tyson, W. Klitschko (yeah, I know I'll gonna get crucified for this but those where IMO the fighters who were seen as standing above their peers at their time by the public, media and their peers). That's where they belong. That's the bottomline. Of course you can pick apart their records and eras. And while it is sometimes fun to do, I think Jeffries and Dempsey have been debated to death over the last 80-100 years and yet they generally are still seen as atg. I don't think there is any added value to debating this anymore.

 

Jeffries went the 25rounds just once.

 

This is hilarious!!!The irony the irony!!!

 

This.
I don't think All-Time Great status is something that can be erased years, decades or centuries after the events.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

It has been written in history that Andrew Jackson was a great man and a hero to the country.

Do you agree with this?

 

I wouldn't, but it does depend on what you consider "greatness" to be. Jackson was certainly a "great" political leader in the sense of being successful. Modern "moral" standards? Jackson fails utterly. But so would most of the "great" men of history. Shaping history and being moral might sometimes intersect, but most often have not.

It reminds me of a comment about an old king--"He never boiled his opponents in oil as his enemies alleged. He boiled them in water. He was a frugal ruler who kept the budget balanced."

For me, Jeff's open racism is right out there and reprehensible, but as a white heavyweight champion he was actually less racist in a practical sense as he in fact fought Johnson, Jackson, Armstrong, and Griffin, a decent cross-section of the best black heavyweights of his time, which other white atg claimants such as Sullivan and Dempsey and Tunney definitely did not do.

 

"His own brother threw in the towel."

That is how Dempsey remembered it in his 1959 autobiography. All the ringside reports agree that he was knocked down and counted out. He came around in his corner and started fighting with his brother. Dempsey and the ringside reports agree on that. To me all this is pretty strong proof that Dempsey didn't really remember what happened. Understandable as he had been knocked out cold. His brother Bernie probably told him the story about throwing in the towel to make him feel better about the devastating loss.

And yes, Dempsey hadn't become "Dempsey" yet, but I don't think he was starving either.

 

I have no idea about Andrew Jackson. "great man" is too subjective, it could have so many meanings and criteria will differ.

I think criteria for an all time boxing great obviously differ too but we can probably form a limited number of different interpretations if not a rough consensus.

My opinion is that it's like a hall of fame of our own choosing. Its something once you are there you are there for eternity.

If Jeffries was ever an all time great he should remain an all time great.

 

This is a good point. I think it speaks to Jeff's lack of effective defense. The limited film shows a guy who looks pretty wide open to me, carrying his left down at his waist.

 

I don't see the criticism of Jeff's defenses against his white opponents making much of a case. Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin, and Fitz were considered the outstanding contenders. Ruhlin got a shot because he had fought a draw earlier with Jeff, who probably wanted to erase this blemish from his record, and also because at 6' 2" and about 200 lbs. he was a big man for the time who was at less of a physical disadvantage to Jeff than the other contenders. Fitz was the best out there but he had lost much more decisively to Jeff than Sharkey had, and Ruhlin hadn't even lost to Jeff at all when they fought a few years earlier.

As for the black contenders, Martin didn't sustain his top status, getting KO'd by former Jeffries victim Armstrong. McVey was a top prospect and beat Martin, but also lost three times to Johnson and would peak well after Jeff's retirement. Johnson was the contender Jeff should have fought and didn't, and Jeff pays a strong historical price for that, and should. He would ironically end up fighting Johnson and losing.

The criticism of fighting Ruhlin before Fitz is far weaker in my judgment than Louis fighting Farr before Schmeling. Jeff had earlier crushed Fitz. Schmeling had KO'd Louis. Still, Farr got the first shot.

Or what about Ali not defending against Foreman at all, but defending against Foreman KO victims Wepner, Frazier, and Norton. Everyone wanted to see Ali against Frazier and Norton, but neither showed themselves better than Foreman. The justification would be that Ali had beaten Foreman more decisively than he had Norton or Frazier. Okay. But Jeff has the same argument. He had beaten Fitz decisively.

And why didn't Holmes give Norton a return shot when their fight had been so close.

And there are probably other examples of atg claimants doing something like this that one could single out.