A historians take on the lack of Sullivan's opponents making the cut as the best ( 1920 )

Do you think that Sullivan would have refused to fight Slavin, if he had come up with the $25 000 asking price instead of Cobett in 1892?

 

Remember that Sullivan was in court until mid 1890 over the Killrain fight, and Slavin wasn't even in America until 1891.

Furthermore Sullivan was officially retired, and his vacant title had been awarded to Slavin.

He might just have fully intended to stay retired.

His main income clearly wasn't coming from boxing, and he clearly wasn't training.

I agree that he would have selected whoever met his price (except Jackson), but if he was just wanting to cash out, then why did he bet his entire extortionate purse on himself?

He was convinced that he was going to beat Corbett, and probably equally convinced that he could beat Slavin.

The only man that he really seems to have ducked, is Jackson!

 

For information; A W.R.Harding a sports writer rated the best in 1885 as follows;
1-Sullivan
2-Mitchell
3-Freyer
4-Burke
5-Greenfield
6-Killrain
7-Ryan
8-McCaffrey
9-Cleary
Of the six rated immediately after him,John L defeated 6.
Burke had wins over Greenfield and draws with Mitchell, Killrain and in 1888 a draw with Slavin in Australia. He also beat Cleary, Glover, Clow, Dempsey and edged an amateur Jim Corbett. These were the men Sullivan was dominating in his early period. Prior to winning the crown he defeated Flood, Elliot, Goss and other top performers of the time. Just because we don't know them doesn't mean they weren't good. Mitchell, Greenfield, McCaffrey, Cardiff can all be argued to be roughly Burke's equal.

 

I have stated this ad nauseam but will state it again...

The distance between peak Sullivan and his contenders is the greatest gap in the history of the division. He was head and shoulder above his competition.

 

You didn't the first time.

 

I am going to say one more thing about Sullivan, that might surprise some.

He was actually a very intelligent man!

He would have made a brilliant an insightful boxing commentator, if the technology had existed!

When he was sober, he was very sharp and analytical!

 

Mitchell beat Burke,
Burke beat Greenfield
Killrain beat Godfrey
McCaffrey beat Mitchell
Cleary beat Dalton
So let's look at Lees, best win...I dunno, Dooley likewise, Smith(Denver Ed?) his best win was over...Goddard! McAuliffe best win, Killen. Goddard did beat Maher, but in 1892. Even Choynski was a raw novice when Goddard beat him.
BTW Mitchell hadn't a real fight for SIX years when he faced Corbett.
Point is Sullivan cleared out the division prior to 1887, and from 1889 was inactive,retired/drunk. Burke drew with Slavin in 1888, Goddards breakthrough was in 1890, while Jackson didn't hit America until 1888. In other words up to 1889 Sullivan beat the best contenders available to him, dissipated as he was.

 

P

Pollack cites a source there, he doesn't make the observation himself,neither does he either endorse or challenge it,he just provides it ,but being stupid you wouldn't know the difference.
I've never worshipped anyone , but I know quality when I see it and Pollack's work is just that ,thoroughly researched ,objective and excellently presented.Show me one negative review he has received?
Perhaps if you had read the Jeffries,Johnson ,and Fitzsimmons bios you might have a better appreciation for his work until then I suggest you keep your ignorant mouth shut.