1904 James J. Jeffries vs 1882 John L. Sullivan

Plus Fitz's already suspect hands went on him.

 

Good points Matt!

 

Munroe was nothing, though.

 

I think that Jeffries was somewhat better when he fought Munro, than when he fought Sharkey.

I also think that Jeffries would probably have stopped Sharkey in their second encounter, if his arm had not been injured going into the fight.

Having said that, I don't think that Sharkey was in Sullivan's class.

 

Sharkey is in Sullivan's class. For sure he beat better fighters.

 

Big difference in the durability of Sharkey and an old Corbett, indeed Sullivan and Corbett, but i get the point that Jim may have improved, the Ruhlin win was impressive but then again Fitz softened up Gus. Certainly,one of the more intriguing matchups. Choynsky or Corbett might give their opinion someday!

 

Ha fought better fighters IMHO, but he lost as many as he won, against the better men of the era.

That is probably not a man in Sullivan's class.

 

Fighters are rated on who they fight, and beat. In that case Shrakey for sure is the better man. When you fight the best, as Sharkey did you win some and lose some. What Sullivan's best win again? His competition is the worst of a lineal champions. The worst.

 

That's a damn shame. Fighters even today still need to worry about injuries. But it really gives you an appreciation for the era.

Conor breaking his shin against Poirier reminds us why Boxing developed the way it did. When people crap on the old timers it shows they have lost sight of how dangerous fighting really is: you don't just have to worry about the other guy hurting you, but the damage you might sustain while trying to hurt him!

I respect both Jeffries and Fitzsimmons. But Bob really was something else.

 

There's been a lot of talk about no film or videos available (or not much in the case of Jeffries). That probably doesn't bother me as much as it does some. I really don't weigh videos as heavily, against all the other information available for Boxers.

For some of the Chess enthusiasts that may be in this thread, let me ask you this (no answer required, because I know that the circumstances are entirely different, but still food for thought): If you had to pick a winner before the start of the last World Chess Championship series, would you rather have their Elo ratings, or videos of them playing (assuming you couldn't have both)?

 

Very salient point, I had a pretty big ding dong recently with a poster about fights and results concerning some old time fighters, his stance was " you never saw them in action " agreed, but it was I had read about their achievements, that resulted in my choices as to who would win, he wouldn't have it , so in full agreement with your thought process . keep well.

 

By that logic James Douglas was better than Larry Holmes.

Sullivan fought the best for about eight years, and dominated pretty much everybody.

I don't see how you could possibly establish that?

What you really mean, is that the available information about his opposition, is the sparsest of any lineal champion.

Either way, nobody argues that Jerry Quarry was on the level of Larry Holmes, because he fought in a stronger era.