John L Sullivan and Peter Jackson

Scheduled for Feb 16, but didn't take place, the Cambridge board of aldermen refused to give license. Greenfield wanted to fight Charley Mitchell on Feb 18 in New York instead, but also didn't take place.

 

Don't believe it ever took place.

 

No......if anyone wants to understand Sullivan and his times you need to get mr. Pollacks book ....it is a classic

 

And you will find the newspaper coverage stated in Isenberg's book. straight out.

 

Are you sure? They say Sullivan was in decline by 1887. Jackson had been boxing since 1883 and had already beaten name guys like Mick Dooley and Tom Lees. I'd pick Jackson over Sullivan in 1887. I also think Jackson's overall resume is better than Sullivan's, and clearly he fought better top level fighters

I don't see Jackson drawing with Jack Burke in 1888. Is this a new found match? What I do see is Jackson pounding a Sullivan opponent like Patsy Cardiff whom Sullivan dew with in 1887.

Regarding the draws, I don't know. I'd have to read the fight report to see if they were just.

 

By the end of 1887 Tom Lees was the only notable win on Jackson's record. I don't know what draws you are referring to, I do know Farnan had the better of their drawn affair. Peter beat Jackson in 1889. The Mike Dooley win means nothing, both were novices and anyway Dooley was never great. Slavin, not Jackson, drew with Burke in 1888. By the end of 1888 it is reasonable to speculate that either Jackson or Slavin might defeat Sullivan but not before.
Jackson, for sure has a better resume of opponents, McAuliffe, Godfrey, Slavin, Cardiff, Ed Smith were excellent wins but he failed to beat Corbett, Goddard or Farnan. I discount the Jeffries loss, Peter was a shell. Sullivan beat Mitchell, Cardiff, Burke, McCaffrey and that's about it.

 

According to Brady's book, on November 25, 1886, Sullivan supposedly sparred with a black opponent in San Bernardino, CA. Unfortunately, local Daily Courier doesn't provide any details of who John L. sparred with, instead discussing miscellaneous moral things.

 

Thanks, Matt. I guess you think Sullivan had something left by 1887, others here make excuses for Sullivan in this timeline. I think a reason Sullivan didn't look so great was his competition level increased. I have seen Sullivan hit a bag, trust me, you want to skip it.

We really don't know how many matches Jackson might have had, but he was a boxer-mover type with speed and a punch. I don't think Sullivan in 1887 would do well, and if he were to win it would have to be early.

The Goddard Jackson fought was better than the Sullivan in 1887, I think. If anything this proves Jackson was not going to be taken out easily as Goddard could hit. Jackson did not lose to Corbett, Goddard or Faran, either. They were draws.

Dooley was the Aussie champion. We would need a historian specializing in boxing down under to learn more about him.

We are all clear on the draw. Right, it was Slavin who drew with Burke, not Jackson

Looking forward to seeing the 1880'srankings. Pat Killen?

 

Killen will be there, especially when sober!
Jackson did lose to Farnan and badly. The Corbett fight was a ND not a draw. I'm familiar with Dooley, he was ok, no more. I actually think the Goddard fight tells against Jackson who didn't appear to be as effective when faced with a durable, aggressive, rough puncher a la Sullivan. Even poor but dirty aggressive men like Fallon, Lambert and Lynch troubled Peter. However to give Jackson his due, his win over Slavin is in my opinion the best win in gloved boxing up until Fitz beat Corbett.

 

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...slade&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=6
Sullivan v Hafey November 1883