Rate Level of Opposition based on M of Q Accomplishment ..

Give me their complete records, and I would be able to venture an opinion.

 

Had Sullivan fought Jackson, Slavin, or Goddard, heck even Dooley we would have a better benchmark as to how good he was, win,lose or draw.

 

Anyhow:

I would assume that the highest accomplishment under Queensbury rules, across all eras, would be to hold the title.

I would assume that the second highest accomplishment, would be to be regarded as the outstanding challenger to the champion.

Being granted a title fight against the champion, under any conditions, would be a greater accolade than being granted an exhibition.

On that basis, we would clearly have to say Sullivan's opposition, with the obvious caveat that we don't know that much about them!

 

I disagree.

It might have tole us something, had they come along a few years earlier.

As things stood, it was just going to be a changing of the guard, unless Sullivan somehow did the unthinkable.

 

No let's not.

If you are serious about understanding Sullivan's career, there is no option except to read some of the better biographies.

They will at least show you extensive media coverage, surrounding all his major fights.

If you don't look beyond Boxrec, then a 12 year old could do just as well!

 

Well, I hear that Deontay Wilder fella has a pretty poor record and he's almost 40-0...

 

They're sonofabitches, that got licked.

I hope I've been helpful.

 

Your argument is one based on absence of evidence, and not even the best evidence available to you.

If you are really interested in understanding Sullivan's career, then I would suggest that you read one of the many excellent biographies on the subject.

They will give context to the various fights, by providing the primary source material.

They will also detail a number of key bouts that are not listed on Boxrec, and give you a better idea of the prior careers of the men listed.

 

This is dumb. Bareknuckle was a major part of boxing in Sullivan's time, just because you can't be bothered looking at any other site than boxrec doesn't change that.

Records from then are already pretty incomplete, just arbitrarilly removing a load more of course leaves his record looking bad.

 

Its not just the bare knuckle fights, and the incompleteness of the records to be honest.

A lot of matches of the period, were billed as exhibitions for legal reasons, but were fights in all but name.

Boxrec do a great job, but they are not as good at picking through the evidence, as the best biographers are.

 

Even more of a joke was Tom Sayers, who is sometimes claimed as one of the great english champions, but doesn't have any bouts on boxrec, yeah 0-0-0, some great champion.

Seriously, if you take someone's incomplete record from when reporting was poor, then strip it further down further by removing bareknuckle bouts, of course it looks bad.

A look through CBZ also finds wins over.
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/rooke-george.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/JohnDonaldson.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/taylor-s.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/dalton-james.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/ryan-p.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/mitchell.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/mccaffry.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/herald-frank.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/kilrain.htm
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/elliott.htm

The Kilrain fight is one that says a lot for Sullivan, considering we know more about Kilrain's abilities, and Sullivan was very much past his best by then.