Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Rich is completely lost....typical.

Again you would need to have been a progressive in those times not to speak typical jargon of those times. Every newspaper writer would write in the same vernacular. This was common speak. Your big issue (among oh so many) is looking at all of this through 2017 eyes.

Once again the color line was a American CULTURAL phenomenon which had NOTHING to do with any one specific person. Understand this as fact.

It took a CANADIAN, Burns, as hwt champion to take a fight with a black. You do understand that Canada has a very different history than America when it comes to the black race.

Regarding lighter weight fighters it was common to fight in very large rings in those days and it made it very difficult to catch lighter faster moving fighters. You do realize that Fitzsimmons was an AtG fighter don't you? Fleischer called Fitz one of the few hwt champions that could KO an opponent with a single blow. Now imagine in that small brain of yours Jeffries in a huge ring with runners canvas and across the way he sees Corbett one of the fastest, slickest boxers ever to live. How to catch such an opponent? CONDITIONS at that time made it possible for lighter weight fighters to succeed or alternatively survive.

Next time think before you write.

 

Why did contemporaries consider Jeffries great and Willard largely a dub? Tex Rickard for example picked Jeffries over Dempsey. Truth is Willard didn't do much except outlast a 37 year old Johnson. We have no idea if Willard even at his best could have beaten the Johnson of Reno. Or how can we be certain a young Jeffries wouldn't have outlasted a 37 year old Johnson also.

Jeffries not being able to beat someone Willard's size is drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence. Like arguing a jaguar as it does not share range with moose could not prey on an adult moose if they did share range. I wouldn't put money on that.

 

Louis and Marciano are being brought up. I rate both ahead of Jeffries and agree that they met tougher opposition and had on balance better records. I also rate Johnson ahead of Jeffries.

Dempsey is another matter.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

You would be a progressive to maintain that the smell of blacks wasn't so offensive as to knock you out?

Thanks, teach!

 

I don't think there is any at all.

Johnson wasn't your typical big man and Jeffries at 35 and having laid off 6 years was not up to any test at all.

Besides Carpentier being a lightheavy, so were Gibbons, Levinsky, and John Lester Johnson. Flynn was about 180 and Tunney just short of 190. These opponents weren't that big but gave Dempsey a lot more trouble than the big fellows.

You seem to be arguing that if we reversed Fitz and Willard and Jeff beat a fat, old, out of shape Willard for the title in 1899 we would have to consider him great in a way we don't now. I don't agree with that. Big and good aren't the same.

Don' t confuse the big dubs of history with modern super-heavies. For the most part they were oafs that the sub 200 lb. guys beat up and their records in the old days are uninspiring.

 

This content is protected

 

Rich.....Jeffries is an ATG hwt champion. Willard one of the worst hwt champions.

Fleischer rated Johnson as his greatest hwt champion with Jeffries second. After Fleischers death in 72 RING altered these ranking pushing Johnson to second place with Jeffries rated No 1. So bottom line is the leading boxing periodical in 1973 rated Jeffries as the greatest of all hwt champions. That's 68 years after Jeffries relinquished the title in 1905.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Why do you imagine Jeffries was always chasing his challengers around in a huge ring?
As champion he dictated the size of the ring.
Fitzsimmons managed to catch up with a prime Corbett in14 rds in1897.
A year later crude slugger Tom Sharkey beat the sh*t out of Corbett in 9 rds .
Two years later Corbett coming out of retirement goes 23 rds with Jeffries!

What were the sizes of those rings?

 

I've been taking the Ring Magazine since I was a kid, I can't remember Jeffries ever being placed at number one, can you provide the proof of this as I don't want to trawl through over 50 years of magazines.