Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

I can agree with the underlined but would refer to him as ,"the best challenger around ". after all, he is still a light heavy. Jeffries was a great fighter for his times but does not translate into an all time great for me.
Some will agree, some won't, it's always going to be subjective isn't it? The premise held by one particular poster that as time went on Jeffries popularity and stock faded falls down badly, because in May's Ring heavyweight poll Jack Johnson came out at number 3,and 15 of the 30 pollsters had him placed in the top 5!
John L Sullivan also finished at number 14, one place ahead of Jeffries. Jim Corbett came out at 18,he would not make my top 20 his winning resume is much too shallow.Bob Fitzsimmons who just squeaked in at number 20, has a much better record and in comparison to Jeffries more impressive wins over common opponents. I would rank Fitz above both Jeffries and Corbett.

 

I agree that Fitzsimmons was better than Corbett, but I can't see a case for ranking him over Jeffries.

Jeffries number of title defences, along with the fact that he won both encounters against Fitzsimmons, must surely seal the deal.

 

I can agree with the underlined but would refer to him as ,"the best challenger around ". after all, he is still a light heavy. Jeffries was a great fighter for his times but does not translate into an all time great for me.
Some will agree, some won't, it's always going to be subjective isn't it? The premise held by one particular poster that as time went on Jeffries popularity and stock faded falls down badly because in May's Ring heavyweight poll Jack Johnson came out at number 3,and 15 of the 30 pollsters had him placed in the top 5.John L Sullivan also finished at number 14, one place ahead of Jeffries. Jim Corbett came out at 18,he would not make my top 20 his winning resume is much too shallow.Bob Fitzsimmons who just squeaked in at number 20, has a much better record and in comparison to Jeffries more impressive wins over common opponents. I would rank Fitz above both Jeffries and Corbett.

Fitz ko'd Sharkey twice.Sharkey twice went the distance with Jeffries
Fitz half killed Ruhlin in 6 rds ,he had to be carried to his dressing room on a make- shift stretcher.A year later against Jeffries, Ruhin was retired on his stool by his manager between the 5th and 6th rds.
Fitz ko'd a prime Jim Corbett in14 rds .Jeffries had to go 23 rds with a 33years old coming out of retirement Corbett and he was behind in the scoring when he scored the ko, over 3 years later a 36 years old 1 month off 37 Corbett who hadn't won a fight in 6 years went 10 rds with Jeffries. Fitz was robbed of a ko against Joe Choynski when the police intervened.Choynski ,conceding 67lbs went 20 rds to a draw with Jeffries.
Jeffries defended his title 7 times ,3 of those defences, against Munroe,Finnegan, and Corbett 2, were gimmees. The other 3 were over men he had already beat Fitz now 39 and Sharkey or one,[Rulin], who had been destroyed by Fitz a year earlier.
Deontay Wilder is making defences ,are they against the best available challengers?

 

I think we should look at how big Jeff was versus his opponents and what this means. (all weights from boxrec or the old Ring Record Book. % from my calculator. I am too old, fat, and lazy to do the math by hand. If something is wrong, the calculator is at fault) The % is of the body weight of the smaller man.

Jeffries-Corbett, 218-188 (86%)
Jeffries-Fitzsimmons, 206-167 (81%)
Jeffries-Sharkey, 215-183 (85%)

Now if Anthony Joshua had come along in the 1960's & 1970's and fought the greats of that era at the weights they won their titles with his weight that he had against Klitschko:

Joshua-Ali, 250-210 (84%)
Joshua-Frazier, 250-205 (82%)
Joshua-Liston, 250-214 (86%)
Joshua-Foreman, 250-217 (87%)
Joshua-Holmes, 250-209 (84%)

Now what about the giants Willard and Carnera and why weren't they considered top men?

Willard-Gunboat Smith, 230-180 (78%) loss
Willard-Dempsey, 245-187 (76%) loss
Carnera-Baer, 263-209 (79%) loss
Carnera-Louis, 260-199 (76%) loss
Carnera-Haynes, 265-197 (74%) loss

The trajectory of size has been upward, with the occasional giant such as Willard or Carnera, for the most part dubs who managed to get to be champions on immense size but were slaughtered by much smaller men.

Jeff is different. He wasn't really a giant at 6'. He was just a man out of time. He had the size of the fighters of the 1960's and 70's at the turn of the century. If Joshua had come along in the 1960's and 1970's he would have been the same. A fighter with the size of a half of a century or more later. The consensus champions of the 1960's and 1970's--Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman--were 5' 11" to 6' 3" and 205 to 217. The consensus champions of the 21st century--Lewis, the Klitschkos, Fury, Joshua--have been 6' 5" to 6' 9" and 240 to 250 plus.

Now I think the issue is if one of the 21st century men such as Joshua came along in the 1960's should we have dismissed his achievements because he was so much bigger than his best opposition? although most consider the best opposition all-time greats?

Should we dismiss Jeffries'?

My take is no. Being bigger should be no cause for penalty in an unlimited division. Being ahead of your time in size is a fact of history only.

 

We shouldn't dismiss his achievements but, when we start to use the term," all time great ",the fact that for the most part his best wins were over much smaller and often older men cannot be ignored imo. And yes Jeffries was a giant for his times not in height in weight.What other muscular top class men were around weighing220lbs?

 

Bottom line Jeffries couldn't box like Corbett,he couldn't hit like Fitzsimmons , but he could absorb far more punishment than either of them, and that in part is because he was significantly bigger, and younger than them.

 

This content is protected

 

Neither did Jeffries. Adam Pollack's exhaustive research reveals that many thought Jeff was on the way to a decision victory, although his conclusion is that a slight majority thought Corbett would edge out a close one if he lasted. Jeff won all the rounds from the 17th on and had won a number of rounds earlier.

This is not really the performance of a novice against the best boxer of the era, regardless of how much the skill level would rise in following decades.

Did some writer(s) use an exaggeration like novice. Sure. After the interception return against Tom Brady in last year's Super Bowl one writer tweeted that Brady was washed up. He later had to eat his words.

 

But just being big doesn't make you tough in and of itself. Jeff could take it, and the dynamic between chin and power favored him. Jeff might not have been able to stop Jeff, but he could stop Fitz. Fitz wasn't able to stop Jeff. I think the results of the Jeff-Fitz fights make it a pretty easy call that Jeff was the better heavyweight.

The Choynski and Ruhlin draws did come very early in Jeff's career. Early in his career, Fitz had some unimpressive turns back in Australia I think.

I also find it hard to see why Ruhlin quitting on his stool after five is better than Ruhlin getting stretched in six. He actually didn't go as far. Perhaps he should have retired on his stool after the fifth against Fitz.

Adam Pollack goes into great detail about Corbett training for six months for Jeff (versus 6 weeks for Fitz) and observers feeling he was looking better than he had for a decade even before the Jeff bout. And also that he looked sharp against McCoy with ringsiders later scoffing at the claims of both men's estranged wives that the bout had been a fix--one wife claiming McCoy was paid to take a dive and the other that Corbett was to take the dive.

Still, your points on Corbett that he was pushing 34 and hadn't won for a long time are well taken and legitimate.

 

"What other muscular top class men were around weighing 220 lbs.?"

Where we differ is that I don't see that as a reason to criticize. The fact is that other atg claimants struggled with men no bigger than the men Jeff was fighting. Dempsey drew with the 170 lb. John Lester Johnson, went 15 with the 175 lb. Gibbons, was KO'd in 1 by the 180 lb. Flynn, and lost twice to the 189 lb. Tunney. Louis was KO'd by the 192 lb. Schmeling and was behind against the 174 lb. Conn in the 13th. Marciano struggled again Lowry, LaStarza, and Charles. Tunney lost to the 164 lb. Greb.

I don't agree with the argument that Jeff should have won easier than the others because he was bigger. Not a good argument in heavyweight boxing. That is only relevant if we are talking p4p.

 

The Ruhlin fight came early in both their careers so that is cancelled out!
Being big doesn't make you tough but if you are 47lbs heavier than your opponent, and 12 years younger, the chances are you can absorb punches better ,or do you disagree?

Ruhlin was unable to leave MSG that night he had to have a makeshift cot made up and a doctor was in attendance all night ,he bled from the nose and ears, lapsed in and out of consciousness and was incoherent into the next day. His manager then removed him to his home for a weeks convalescence I'd say that is a worse beating than being retired fully conscious on your stool by your manager .
The paying public obviously agreed because Ruhlin and his manager were castigated for quitting prematurely.Ruhlin was diminished after the Fitz beating anyway, he had only had only fight in the interim and struggled to draw with an alcoholic Peter Maher over 6 rds.

McCoy left the US after the Corbett fight, boxing abroad for a year, I've read he was persona non grata at home after the Corbett bout.

 

When Jeffries vs. Fitz 2 came around Jeffries said if Fitz claims 170, put me down for 144. A sign that Fitz was heavier than he listed.

With Rich, so far I have noticed he's all one way. One thing if for sure, Jeffries unlike Johnson, Corbett, Sullivan, Willard, Louis. Dempsey never lost to anyone under 200 pounds.

So if Rich is really obsessed about size or upset losses to smaller men, he applies the same standards.

We all see in time if he sees it the same way for other fighters.

Rich, can you tell us?

I just wanted to know if you view the size of opponents such as Johnson, Dempsey, and Louis against them as well, and you really did not answer that.

So I'll ask again, does losing to sub 200 opponents or not dominating them in your view diminish them and make them suspect vs larger modern sized champions such as Anthony Joshua who really has not proven much besides beat a 41 yea told Wlad who was out of the ring for 1.5 years?

A reply to that question would be appreciated. Thanks.

If you want the fighters option Corbett, Burns, Sharkey, Langford, Johnson ( Who called Jeffries the greatest once and #2 after Fitzsimmons in a list ), and Dempsey all say Jeffries was the best of the times. How could they all be wrong? Nat Fleischer was there, you have to respect this opinion a little. If you want more, there are other historians who viewed Jeffries as high as #1 well past the 1940's!

As far as watching, I'm pretty sure I've seen more film than most here on the forum on heavyweight champions. Jeffries can be seen on your tube for training, 1-2 rounds with Ruhlin, a few minutes via bootleg copy vs Sharkey and for several rounds with Johnson, most of which are close until the final two rounds shown. Maybe you have seen it all, maybe not

Only the training film is up close and clear qualifies of what he looked like and how he moved in his prime.

I have also seen stuff, not on youtube, such as Jeffries training/sparring with Ryan ( pre-prime ), a clip from Sharkey vs Jeffries 2 not on youtube, but in the movie the Night they Raided Minsky's, and pounding on a heavy bag.

 

I see Joshua did not rate, so what does this list really mean for the conversation? If you value the list, it means something.

What film have they seen on Jeffries? What do they really know about him? Most of those guys are not historians, they only wrote a book or two. The rest may have only seen Jeffries old on film. If all there was to see on Ali, was his match with Holmes, what would these people think? That's Jeffries main problem.

If you want to use a historians group, the IBRO had Jeffries #7, and some of its best members #1-#3.

 

Jeffries no doubt was an ATG......its boxing history! I don't rate anyone prior to Johnson however because the lack of good film footage.

 

Solid work again Ed. Correct. A detailed round by round report had the fight about even with rounds, with Jeffries having the momentum in the final frames.