Heavyweight year-end ratings, 1880-1891.

This is an attempt to replicate Ring's year-end ratings for these early years. 1880 and 1881 are just introductory, not really much more than a list of ten top contenders. 1882 on I have done before but I'm always looking to tweak them as new information and opinions become available. I'm using glove results only and have tried to leave out retrospective knowledge as much as I can, eg we now know that Paddy Ryan proved a bust with the gloves. Criticism, opinions and suggestions welcome.

1880
1-Dwyer
2-Miller
3-Ryan
4-Sullivan
5-Hadley
6-Goss
7-Foley
8-Godfrey
9-Elliott
10-Knifton
1881
1-Sullivan
2-Ryan
3-Miller
4-Hadley
5-Farnan
6-Dalton
7-CC Smith
8-Godfrey
9-Donaldson
10-McDonald
1882
1-Sullivan
2-Hadley
3-Godfrey
4-Kilrain
5-C C Smith
6-Grant
7-Mitchell
8-Cleary
9-McCaffrey
10-Eliott
1883
1-Sullivan
2-Mitchell
3-Godfrey
4-Kilrain
5-Cleary
6-Greenfield
7-Hadley
8-Woodson
9-McHenry Johnson
10-Miller
1884
1-Sullivan
2-McCaffrey
3-Kilrain
4-Burke
5-Mitchell
6-Farnan
7-Cleary
8-Godfrey
9-Cardiff
10-Thompson
1885
1-Sullivan
2-McCaffrey
3-Burke
4-Mitchell
5-Kilrain
6-Cleary
7-Cardiff
8-Killen
9-Godfrey
10-Lees
1886
1-Sullivan
2-Kilrain
3-Cardiff
4-Mitchell
5-Burke
6-McCaffrey
7-Killen
8-Godfrey
9-Lannon
10-Cleary
1887
1-Sullivan
2-Kilrain
3-Cardiff
4-Killen
5-Mitchell
6-Burke
7-Ashton
8-Godfrey
8-Jackson
10-McAuliffe
1888
1-Sullivan
2-Jackson
3-Killeen
4-Kilrain
5-Cardiff
6-Godfrey
7-Burke
8-Slavin
9-McAuliffe
10-Ashton
1889
1-Jackson
2-Sullivan
3-McAuliffe
4-Godfrey
5-Slavin
6-Killen
7-Cardiff
8-Kilrain
9-Ashton
10-Goddard
1890
1-Jackson
2-Slavin
3-Goddard
4-Godfrey
5-Corbett
6-McAuliffe
7-Kilrain
8-Choynski
9-Killen
10-Laing
1891
1-Jackson
2-Corbett
3-Slavin
4-Goddard
5-Kilrain
6-Godfrey
7-McAuliffe
8-Choynski
9-Laing
10-Maher

 

In the light of my thread on the early champs drawing the colour line ,I found your ranking of Jackson interesting ,and the fact that Godfrey seems to have been a fixture in that time period. I hope you will continue this .Thanks.

 

I'd suggest Alf Greenfeild being ranked in 1880.

 

I think that Greenfield should be in a few years.

 

A good effort.

Fitzsimmons? Dooley?

 

What heavyweights had Fitz beaten up to the end of 1891?

 

Considered Dooley but he just missed out. Fitz had nothing much done by 1891.

 

Greenfield could be in from 1880 to 1885 for sure but he was fairly inactive. I think I'll put him in in 1880 and 1881 when I review this and maybe 1884 and 1885 when he was going even with Burke.

 

He has 47 recorded fights up to 1891. I'm guessing some were over 160 pounds.

Remember in his time there was middle weight and heavyweight, nothing in-between. As the top middle in a time where many of the heavies were that size, I think Fitz should rate.

[url]http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/fitz.htm[/url]

 

I tend to think the group from 1886-1891 was better than the grouping of 1880-1885.

The best fighters from 1886-1891 in this timeline were:

Jackson, Slavin, Killen, Goddard, and Godfrey. Sullivan didn't fight any of them. Jackson, Slavin, and perhaps Killen were better than anyone Sullivan defeated. Had he fought and beaten two of these three, his resume would be significantly better.

 

I'd agree they were better than the earlier lot and I'd add Goddard to Slavin and Jackson. Kilrain however would be ahead of Godfrey and Killen, admittedly Sullivan beat him over LPR rules.

 

Nobody considered Fitz until he moved up to defeat Maher in 1892 after defeating Dempsey. In 1891 McAuliffe beat Cardiff, Kilrain beat Godfrey who had just defeated Ed Smith. Maher had wins over Daly, Lambert and Fallon which wasn't a great bunch and Laing was on a run of wins including Owen Sullivan while Choynski had Glover, Wilson and Sullivan in his locker. Not sterling stuff but I think we still need retrospective knowledge to know that Fitz would beat the lot of them in 1891.

 

Well there were people suggesting he fight Sullivan after he beat Dempsey. I don't know how highly people rated his chances.

 

Kilran was a bare-knuckle guy for the most part. Was he better than Killen? Unknown. There were very few bare buckle guys who did well with gloves, I think. Sullivan vs. Killen would be a makable and exciting match. Two punchers, both with size. Could be an upset as Sullivan so that say was past it by the mid-1880s.

I find the 1880's a frustrating time to read about. Too few matches, too much police intervention. Fight reports are harder to track down. No film either.

Cheers.

 

How many bareknuckle fights did Kilrain actually have? I only know of his fights with Smith and Sullivan, and those are the only ones I see on CBZ. Two of his bigger fights, but he fought in MoQ much more.

I think he just knew Sullivan preferred MoQ, and knew he could exploit the LPR rules to drag Sullivan into deep waters. I think calling him a bareknuckle guy in wrong.