Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Bottom line is you are inherently wrong. Jeffries was rated as an ATG for many many decades. It's YOU that are trying to alter known boxing history. It's unfortunate that the same bias that Mendoza exhibits towards Johnson, also inherently wrong, you are exhibiting towards Jeffries.

Johnson himself stated Jeffries was a great fighter.... better than Dempsey or Louis. Johnson was completely wrong in his assessment? Was he lying?

Willard is only one of many who stated Jeffries was only a shell of himself when he fought Johnson. This is quite evident when you watch that bout. To say Jeffries that day looked the same as prime Jeffries is highly disingenuous. This was Jeffries at his absolute worst in the final bout of his career.

Fleischer rated Johnson AND Jeffries very highly. After Fleischers death Ring altered its (Fleischers) ratings dropping Johnson below Jeffries all time. These were all very knowledgeable writers and historians far closer to this era that you or I or for that matter anyone else living today. These opinions matter BECAUSE of their closeness to the era in question.

 

No, you quoted Willard as saying Jeffries was ,"a sick man ",and he wasn't, out of his own mouth and the mouths of his corner Jeffries said he was in good shape.I have all the quotes ,the reports, and comments.
I know how Jeffries looked against Van Buskirk,Kennedy ,Baker, etc .Do you?

Nowhere have I said Jeffries looked the same as when he was prime so it is YOU who is being disengenuous!
Show me one Ring rating in which Jeffries is ranked above Johnson!

I'm not trying to alter known history I 'm trying to get you to face it!

I've asked about 7 times now what is Corbett's best win? You still haven't replied .

What signature win does he have to calls him as an ATG?

 

Good post!
Jeffries was great for his time, in last months Ring magazine,in the poll for All Time heavyweights made up of 30 panelists he came 15th! None put him in the top ten! Those guys raving about his speed had only seen Sullivan ,Corbett and Fitz! They had nothing to compare him to, he was the first muscular 220lbs heavyweight,today he would be a small heavy!

ps Not heard of Tiglath,

 

OK, so you are not sold on Ferguson.

My point is that there were a whole myriad of heavyweights who were contemporaneous with Jeffries, who were as big as him, or bigger than him.

This means that we can’t chalk his success up exclusively to his size.

It must be apparent to you that Jeffries changed his style significantly, and refined his technique significantly, during the period between winning the title and retirement.

This is hardly surprizing, given his relative inexperience when he won the title.

 

Even if you are not sold on these opponents, I don't think that you should dismiss the opinions of ringsiders like Ed Granney, who stated that he had improved.

The short answer to this is yes.

What I see is a man who might have been quite tricky to hit, when his reflexes were a bit sharper.

 

My point which I explained, is they were not top flight.Not only was Jeffries bigger than everyone he fought he was also for the most part better! I don't chalk his success up to his size except for one fight, his return with Fitz when it was expressly stated, had they been of a similar stature and age ,[Jeffries was 12 years Fitz's junior!] Fitz would have won. What was Jeffries doing differently against Corbett 2 that he wasnt doing against Ruhlin2 two years earlier ?

 

I will throw out the obvious counter argument to this, that people who lived through Jeffries era continued to rate him into the 1930s, and beyond.

Make of that what you will.

What is also interesting, is Corbett and Fitzsimmons remained in the discussion about the greatest heavyweights, well into the 1930s.

People talked about them in the same sentence as dominant champions like Johnson, Dempsey and Louis.

The obvious implication of that would be that Jeffries opposition was better than that of the other dominant champions.

 

OK, so if it was not just Jeffries size, then what do you see as being his other outstanding qualities?

What set him apart from the other big men of his day?

 

Jeffries has never been described as "quite tricky to hit" in 1902 Fitz was described as," hitting him when and where he liked." Jeffries was then 27 years old and had been champion for 3 years he would only have 2 more defences before retiring, he was bang in is prime yet a near 40 years old man found no difficulty in hitting him !


If you fought me ten years ago I would hazard a guess I would have put up a better fight than I would now. The fights with Corbett 2 and Munroe proved nothing!Munro later fought Johnson and the ringside reports stated he did not even know how to thow a punch properly! I'm not exaggerating here! How can you get a line on a fighters improvement against such abysmal opposition?

 

His chin.

 

Nothing else?

 

Perhaps he was the Bill Kazmaier figure of boxing.

An athlete who was so far a head of his contemporaries, that it took three decades for something better to emerge.

What strikes me is that he was in the discussion, but guys like Willard, Schmeling, Sharkey, and Baer were not.

He and Corbett were assumed to be a cut above those fighters, while today it would be questioned.

Like most of my contempories, I question this, but I don't think that most people did in the 30s.

These are not my viewpoints, but they give me pause for thought, as they should others.