Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

A lot more than three. There were a myriad of newspapers in those days. Just at a quick glance, he quotes,
The New York World, Sun, Times, Tribune, Clipper, Herald, The Brooklyn Eagle, San Franciso Call, National Police Gazette, San Franciso Chronicle, Examiner, Evening Post, La Times, and on and on.

My own research (I'm now old and have no access to a big city library) in the past backs Pollack up in that how one-sided this fight was depends on which paper you're reading.

"he has to rely solely on eyewitness accounts. The text you quoted were just mere opinions."

What else is there?

What have you got that isn't someone's mere opinion?

 

Try to quote me in context.

I said Jeffries won round 4 and 9. He did. He also drew first blood. Many rounds were close. Watch the films one day, you just might learn something!

If the fight was 10 rounds only, under the way fights were judged and in this case, the politics could have been declared a draw.

 

KuRuPT,

He knew him, saw him in the ring and at workouts, and saw the films, which back then were much clearer and more viewable. That and 1st hand testimonials from other fighters, managers, promoters, sports writers, and ring officials were the foundations upon which he used to rate Jeffries #2 overall.

Do you agree with the above?

How is this unscientific?

If one must see a person to rate him, you would have to throw out 90% of the people you rate.

I have never seen Ali or Holmes in person yet I view them as #1 and #2.

 

Your such turd. Picking and choosing what suits you best, quoting Pollack when you need to and ignoring what he researched in this case. If you really value what he said, why not quote him?

I have posted first-hand write ups and scored the rounds based on how the author would have. The fight was about even in rounds, with Jeffries having the momentum from round 17 to finish ( round 23 ). Corbett was down in round 17 or 19 ( I forget ) and out cold for the count in round 23.

 

mcvey said: [url]↑[/url]
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.

McVey is a moron. No one else really thought that. Jeffries KO'd Fitzsimmons twice.

 

"his opinion"

His conclusion as an historian drawn from the writers of the day. All I can say is he has done the research, and as he has written a biography of Corbett also, I don't see any reason for him to distort in favor of Jeffries.

This is his quote from the World on the postfight reaction--"Some declared for Jeffries because he was aggressive and his face to the enemy. Others thought Corbett because he landed oftener, and others thought that White could have called it nothing but a draw."

The bottom line seems to be that a majority thought Corbett would get the nod, but Jeff was coming on and had knocked Corbett down in the 19th and 22nd rounds. How much does aggression count? Quantity of punches versus power of punches? What about those knockdowns? A strong finish?

All of this is so subjective that there is often disagreement on fights in which there is a complete film, let alone one I think not filmed, and with the film available for viewing over and over today.

I'm always open to new info and better research, but right now Adam Pollack has given me what I consider the most complete view of this fight.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

You don't have to take my word for anything. The best would be to read Pollack yourself.

I respect him and his research. He provides the names of the newspapers he quotes. I personally doubt his doing all this research to simply grossly distort or make something up. That Jeff was largely competitive in this fight if behind a bit in points does not strike me as screwy.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but leave me out of it.

"Winning the last 6 rounds in a 25 rd fight aren't going to mean anything."

Depends on how it is scored, doesn't it? Are you certain you know exactly the criteria for scoring fights in 1900? Anyway Jeff seems to have won all rounds from the 17th on. He had to be way, way behind not to have a chance to catch up winning the last 9 rounds.

"He had a lot of trouble"

Good point and use it for what it is worth.

It is also true the opponent was a famous fighter who was the only man to ever defeat Sullivan and had lost decisively only to Fitz. The Sharkey fight was an odd DQ.

Anyway, we might just as well agree to disagree as we have little common ground on how we judge historical fighters and their greatness.

 

This content is protected

 

I don't know why this is a reply to me when you spend most of the post rebutting Parry who has a different point of view from me. I haven't had anything to do with a 25 x 25 ring debate. I don't agree with Fleischer's all-time ratings.

"fixated on size" "inability to dominant and put away these guys in easy fashion given his size and strength"

You seem to be arguing from both sides of the fence here. My position (and I'm not Parry) is size certainly matters in the here and now world we live in. Ask the buffalo which took on the rhino, if it could speak and wasn't vulture grub. But size is just a fact of life in heavyweight boxing.

"dominant"

Your position seems to boil down to because of his size Jeffries should have been out of this world dominant. But you're overlooking that he was dominant. How many heavyweight champions in the first half of the century retired as champion w/o losing a fight? How many were never off their feet until a comeback at 35? Other atg claimants like Johnson and Louis and Dempsey have their advantages over Jeff's record, but all have record deficits also, including KO defeats on the way up. Did Jeff's size help him? Of course. But that is not a valid criticism of him.

"there were no weigh ins"

Adam Pollack says this and he certainly has done research. All you have to do to rebut him is tell when the official weigh in took place and what were the weights. The wide variation in estimations of weights for these turn of the century heavyweight fights do point to Pollack being correct.

 

Except most historians rate Johnson above Jeffries so I don't know how much they come to Jeff's defense other than to say accurately that he was in that fight a hollow shell.

And if you ask, my pre-1950 ratings would be
1---Joe Louis
2---Jack Johnson
3---Jim Jeffries

 

I guess your position is that the rhino should have finished that buffalo in a few seconds rather than taking a few minutes doing it.

You could be right. The rhino is a wimp given how big and strong it is.

All that aside, I think we should agree to disagree as we have very different criteria for historical greatness.