I am in the process of rating the top 200 Heavyweights of alltime, a duunting task. The medhodology I am applying is to rate the top 20 for each decade, a total of 260 boxers and then use this template to do up the 200. I intend to post my ratings for the decades in four parts as the total would be too big a post for forum readers to absorb in a short span of time and offer their criticisms and opinions. NB A fighter is rated in only one decade, the one in which IMO he did his best work. Sometimes this can be arbitary, think Jeffries, Losis, Doughlas for example but in the final shake-up it wont matter. NB2! While I have rated the men by decade I'm rating them on them on their career body of work. The main criteria is career accomplishments, not potential or peak performance. Head to head comes into play only when I find it hard to split two fighters and I'm sure the biggest factor is my own biases and lack of knowledge. 1880-89 1 jackson 2 sullivan 2 kilrain 4 godfrey 5 ed smith 6 mcauliffe 7 killeen 8 ashton 9 lannon 10 cardiff 11 mitchell 12 lees 13 farnan 14 cc smith 15 burke 16 wilson 17 cleary 18 hadley 19 conley 20 mccaffrey 1890-99 1 jeffries 2 fitz 2 corbett 4 maher 5 sharkey 6 mccoy 7 goddard 8 slavin 9 choynski 10 childs 11 armstrong 12 kennedy 13 griffin 14 hall 15 klondike 16 o'donnell 17 dunkhorst 18 creedon 19 craig 20 butler 1900-09 1 johnson 2 jeanette 2 martin 4 burns 5 hart 6 ruhlin 7 o'brien 8 root 9 ferguson 10 gardner 11 j.flynn 12 kaufman 13 schreck 14 ross 15 j.t.sullivan 16 barry 17 munroe 18 lang 19 stewart 20 carter This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
critics abound, and I'm sure you put much thought and effort into your work, but you lose tremendous credibility by placing peter jackson ahead of john l. sullivan to wit, john l. sullivan defeated in actual fights or was clearly better in exhibitions (sometimes real fights and sometimes not, but I include exhibition wins which where there was clear superiority) george rooke, joe goss (the bareknuckle champion at the time in an exhibition) , mike donovon, john donaldson, james dalton, john flood, paddy ryan (bareknuckle champion) jimmy ellitott (former title claimant) , steve taylor, tug wilson, alf greenfield, charley mitchell (both gloves and bareknuckle, arguably no. 2 for this decade), herbert slade, jack burke (fought mitchell razor close several times), dominck mccaffery, and jake kilrain in the last bareknuckle title fight. I haven't even included the guys who challenged sullivan on his last four rounds with me offer, which no one ever did except wilson who did so by illegal tactis and should have been dq'd, which george robinson was dq'd for the same thing, because some of those guys weren't trained fighters. jackson in the 1880's defeated mick dooley, tom lees, george godfrey (top american black), joe mcaufle, patsy cardiff, frank slavin and his famous draw with corbett. Sullivan drew the color line, his reputation is soiled by it, but it wasn't because he couldn't beat those guys, in the mid 1880's he would have EASILY beaten godfrey, cac smith or any of the others, and he still would have beaten them in the later 1880's just not quite as easily. jackson's prime was 1889 or so until 1893, just as sullivan's will to fight and physical debauchery was catching up to him, indeed the story of his getting ready for the kilrain fight in 1888 was a herculean task for him, and jackson was probably much better than kilrain at the time. placing one guy over another because of them never fighting is a poor way of judging fighters, after all lennox lewis never faced john ruiz or chris byrd, and we know who was better there.
Greenfield was but an average middle, Slade was useless and just a product of a PR campaign.tug Wilson was, as you alluded to yourself, another joke. Taylor and Flood were good local fighters, nothing more.Dalton was an in an out journeyman. Mccaffrey and Mitchell were reasonable but their best effords were against John L and each other. The Burke win was also reasonable but he like Mitchell was but a middleweight in reality. Rooke was a middle too but not as good.Donaldson was a second-rater and while the win over Kilrain was excellent, it was with bare-knuckles. As I pointed out I am rating the fighters on their career performances and I think that draws with Corbettand Goddard, wins over Godfrey, Slavin, Denver Ed Smith, McAuliffe and Cardiff are all better than any gloved performances of the great John L whom I admire greatly. I used tp rate hin above Jackson and indeed head to head at their best he might well take it but I cannot see anything in his record to put him above Jackson.
debate is wonderful, but peter jackson was not better than john l. sullivan, sullivan would have beaten all the people jackson did in his prime, and would have done so in a shorter time.
Bit late on this reply, but i have been looking a bit at Farnan this morning. Farnan was in line for a shot at Sullivan, and really should have got it. It would have been a great fight, although it is hard to imagine Sullivan not winning. Still, with regard to Jackson, how much do you think him losing to Farnan (arguably twice) and not beating Corbett and Goddard, which were arguably his 4 biggest fights. Is this offset by wins over McAulliffe, Slavin and other lesser fighters. Although he is one of my favourite fightes, I am not so sure that Jackson did enough to rate over Sullivan. How do you see these losses affecting his legacy?
The primary basis for Jackson eclipsing John L is that John L went into semi retirement. There's nothing more to it. He was drinking his was round the country whilst Jackson was still winning fights, hence the change. It's a bit like having an "in crowned" champ. Actually adjusting the ratings that way is a bit strong, it's probably just a recognition of the situation.
I think it is more than that. Peter Jackson was very, very highly regarded by his peers. I agree that Sullivan shouldnt really lose points for not fighting him. Ironically, everything i read has always said that Jackson never held a grudge against Sullivan for not giving him a shot. He always blamed Corbett, but not sullivan. Jackson s biggest win was against Slavin who he arguably beat twice. He was considered the standout fighters by most have his peers. Bob Fitzsimmons who ultimately defeated Corbett. Would have certainly sparred Jackson. As good as Fitz was, no one would have given him a shot against a prime Peter Jackson, including himself (i have read Fitz say this). The strange thing is though, for me, why is he so highly regarded when he appears to have lost twice to Farnan (close to prime, if not in his prime), only drawn with Corbett (supposedly after his prime and with an injured leg but still) and only drawn with Goddard (undertrained and overconfident admittedly). He went a long time undefeated in between his two losses, and i am sure he looked good even great. But does this really offset his struggles in his biggest fights. I am not sure.
The answer is in the question. It does offset it. By default. Because of how highly regarded he was. Let me show you a more recent example. Chuck Liddell. During his prime he was regarded as one of the absolute best fighters in the whole world. But during this time he lost twice, both times by knockout, to Quinton Jackson. Yet he was and still regarded as a great fighter.
