GUILALAH: My Current AT Heavy Rankings

How does failing to meet the top contender harm your legacy.

First you have to ask what are the worst case scenarios here?

Sullivan:

A badly disipated Sullivan looses the title to Jackson some time between the Killrain fight and the Corbett fight. His curent resume is untouched and he has lost to a great fighter while far past his best. You could argue that his resume is no better or worse.

Jeffries:

Looses the title to Jack Johnson around the time of the Munroe fight. He has lost to Johnson at his absolute peak proving that Johnson is the better fighter but his curent resume is basicaly unouched. So while he is still a dominant champion he slides down the rankings.

Dempsey:

Looses the title to Wills around the middle of his title reign and his resume is ripped to shreds. Dempsey is remembered as a flash in the pan champion.

Ironicaly it is the fighters who were least willing to make these matches whose legacies are harmed the least by not m,aking them. On the other hand it is in their case that the worst case scenario is most probable.

Sullivan loosing to Jackson:

Highly probable given his condition.

Jeffries loosing the title to Johnson:

Verry possible. Lets say a 50/50 type fight for the sake of argument.

Dempsey loosing the title to Wills:

Improbable. Certainly the lest likley of the scenarios listed.

 

I think that's a bit biased. I don't think Ali's style was the worst for Liston, who had an incredible jab, which was proven to be a problem for Ali, and he wasn't much further away from his prime than Ali was. In fact, he had the two the best wins of his career and then immediately lost to Ali, so it's hardly like he was done.

 

You are assuming that Dempsey and Wills came off in 1924 or so, but it could have and perhaps should have come off in 1920 when the 31 year old Wills would have been at least even money.

 

Sullivan was badly disipated by the time of the Killrain bout and in many ways that was the day he turned back the clock to beat the aparent heir to his throne. That was his Hopkins Pavlik in effect.

I am prepared to asume in general terms that Sullivan would have lost to Peter Jackson a few years after the Killrain bout. In all I dont think it would have told us anything that the Corbett fight didnt tell us.

 

Why 1920 and why even money?

I guess Wills claim to fight Dempsey became overwhelming after he beat Fred Fulton. That was also when Dempsey started to entertain the idea.

I think it is hard to say that Wills would have been even money given the stylistic disadvantage he would have been at. Also Dempsey was the champion and would have dictated rules and terms likley to favour him.

 

Certainly it would have been a huge huge fight if a bit of a Johnson Jeffries style mismatch.

Perhaps Jackson Corbett for the title would have been the big one.

 

Lets look at it another way.

Could Sullivan have beaten Jackson around the time of the Killrain fight?

There might be a narrow window of oportunity where it would be competitive with 20 20 hindsight but I think that by the time Jackson forces the issue Sullivan is too disipated.

 

1. "Why 1920"

Wills definitely became the outstanding contender with his impressive ko of Fulton.

2. "Why even money"

Wills had beaten Langford, McVey, and Jeannette, and I would say those were more impressive wins than Dempsey's over the glass-chinned Fulton (also ko'd by Wills) and the old Willard and ordinary Morris. Dempsey had not even been willing to fight Langford. I would favor Wills myself.

 

The Killrian fight was close, and everyone else on the list has a win better than Killrain.

Sullivan was also down vs Mitchel, and really did not blow out any quality gloved fighter...and Sullivan fought with gloves more than bare fists.

Was Sullivan that far ahead of his competition? How can we say for sure? Sullivan did not not make any matches with Goddard, Jackson, Slavin, et al.

 

Lennox&Larry deserve some more love.

4 to 8 a little overhyped. Jack Johnson could stay there i guess, but i just dont see how the rest are better then some of the others.

I understand they are historicly important, but the records just dont add up(even if its hard to compare pre20's to abc belt 90's)