But that is not what happened in practice. Many people continued to rate him highly even into the era of Joe Louis, and well beyond. I think that this interpretation is somewhat harsh to be honest. Jeffries believed in the colour bar, and believed that he was doing the right thing by drawing it, but he was essentially a product of the attitudes of his time. He was more racist in the way that your grandma is racist, than racist in the way that a KKK supporter is racist.
So what we are then left with is that Jeffries is damned more from a moral standpoint, but Dempsey is still damned more from a legacy standpoint.
I don't think it is to be honest. Jeffries did the wrong thing, and it left a small hole in his legacy. Dempsey tried to do the right thing, albeit reluctantly, and it left a big hole in his legacy. That is what we are left with!
I would say he was a ATG, he fought his fights to his strengths, until his return to face Johnson he was unbeaten. Jefferies was the best of his era, he had the tools required of that era. ATGs of the modern era would face difficulties fighting in previous eras be that number of rounds, glove weights, rules, etc. I wonder how many Heavyweight champs of the modern era could/would lose 100 pounds to make the above Johnson comeback.
An atg is someone that you believe would be great in all eras. That is dependent on how you think he does in h2h fantasy match ups. So it is subjective.
You mention jab and movers. Not a come forward slugger. The little good film we have, and even more the ringside reports, point to a man with a not very good defense, but who was really able to take it and keep coming, with cuts and broken noses the price he paid.
That is not a good definition. Because of its subjectiveness, being based on speculation and the hypothetical.
Atg literally means all time great. Great in all times. There is absolutely no objective way of knowing how two fighters from seperate eras would do against each other. Absolutely no way. Sure we can speculate based off of facts and try to come to the most likely conclusion but without them actually fighting there is no way of knowing. Sorry but that's just how it is.
It's interesting that Fleischer, who knew Jeffries well, wrote that Jeff was in no way a racist. Statements made by Jeffries need to be looked at through the eyes of a someone living in the turn of the century circa 1900 US. What passes as reprehensible racism today was normal jargon in those days.
Dempsey fought with low guard. Great head movement and agility made his defense very good. Prime Jeffries I am very sure was not the open target many make him out to be today. He was agile on his feet and would slip and duck punches dipping and sidestepping to his right.
It's pretty hard to believe that when he flat out said that he was only fighting Johnson to prove that a white man is better than a "Negro". But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because I have seen him with pictures of black kids acting playful. I doubt a dedicated racist would pose with black children.
Maybe it means great for all time. ie. It means they reached a level of greatness in their own time than deserves them to be remembered for all time. Alexander The Great might not have had the skills and abilites to be better than average in the modern world. But historians would never bother speculating on that. He was Alexander The Great and always will be.
That was normal for the times. In fact, if you pop over to the General Forum sometime you'll see things haven't changed much.