Based on what ? What quality fighter of any sort was Sullivan fighting and defeating pretty much ever let alone in the mid 1880's ? Sullivan was a fat alcoholic for most of 83 - 89 .. the fact that Muldoon was able to get him into shape enough from the dead to defeat Kilran (bareknuckle) was considered a monster accomplishment because of how bad he looked for so long as well as his vulnerability to illness based on his condition. He looked terrible against the much smaller Mitchell and was lucky to escape with a draw. Sullivan was an enormous natural talent. Strong, fast, mean, great chin and a murderous puncher but he was also a terrific waster of talent for the vast majority of his career. Jackson was by all accounts a much more developed fighter and cut his teeth against a more sophisticated caliber of fighter in Australia than John L. was punching out in America. Corbett basically made his Jackson match an endurance match .. running for the first thirty rounds against a man fighting on a damaged leg .. Read Muldoon's bio .. he details the blood seeping out of Jackson's sox during the fight .. Corbett wanted absolutely no part of Jackson in any rematch that wold not be a finish fight ... he knew he couldn't beat Peter in a 15 or 20 round bout.
In early 1887 John L Sullivan broke his left arm fighting Patsy Cardiff, and it seems that he never fully recovered from the injury. He starts selecting his opponents a lot more carefully after this. He still has enough left to beat Jake Killrain in a LPR fight, as late as mid 1889. After this he is basically retired, and drinking himself into oblivion. It is not hard to find evidence of his self destructive lifestyle between 1889 and 1892, and doubts were expressed about whether he could be a serious factor in the sport again.
Based on what Jackson was doing up to 1888, the men he was fighting and either losing to or struggling with were Farnan and Lees, do you think they were better than Burke, McCaffrey, Cardiff, Ryan, Herald, Greenfield? Based on the fact that he DID get fit for the Kilrain fight. Sullivan was no man-eater 1883-1887 but Jackson was nothing until then. The Jackson-Corbett fight has nothing to do with this timeline, Peter beats Sully 1888 to 1892 in my opinion despite the fact that his style gave Jackson most trouble but by this time frame he was shot and Jackson was very, very good.
We only have to look at recent fighters, to see how a long reigning champion builds up an aura of invincibility. People had been predicting Sullivan's demise for some time, based upon his lifestyle. Herald was supposed to finish him, Killrain was supposed to finish him. By the time somebody came around who could actually finish him, people were reluctant to believe it! That is what psychologists call "the hot hand theory."
No victory is meaningless. Didn't Maher have 16 fights ( 16-0 ) on his record when they fought? I think that means something. Sullivan was pretty much done knocking guys out 1885. He never fought anyone like Jackson, who for the time had good size, speed and power. Jackson could have beaten Sullivan years before Corbett did.
Counterpoint. Who did Sullivan beat as good as Maher or Slavin? Probably no one. These two were better than Burke, McCaffrey, Cardiff, Ryan, Herald, Greenfield. Didn't Jackson KO Cardiff? Yes, he did. Sullivan took the same man the distance. Sullivan flat out ducked Slavin. He didn't fight the big puncher Pat Killien who was active during Sullivan's prime. So it wasn't just the top black fighters Sullivan didn't fight ( Jackson and Godfrey ) you could say he missed out on the top two white fighters in the 1880' too. Heck Jackson's draws with Corbett shows his quality, and Godard, who Jackson also drew with, was better than anyone Sullivan beat. Bottom line: Jackson was far more tested than Sullivan ever was in terms of fighting top competition. John L Sullivan. Legend, puncher, and boxer with a very thin resume of quality opponents. To clarify, we don't entirely need the film to judge a fighter if he beat the best of his time. For example, Greb did meet and beat the best many times. We wish there was film, but we also know his quality. Sullivan simply did not fight the elite of the times. Sully's best gloved in is probably Mitchell who floored him, but the win is devalued as Corbett finished the same guy in short order.
Bravo, except you, left out how fond Siler was of Johnson, which puts the Jackson was the best of the black heavyweight by long odds in context. The book came out in 1907, less two years before Johnson defeated Burns. So there we have it, a man who was Mr. Boxing of the times that saw both making his call, and it was not a close call. Jackson > Johnson based on a man who saw them both. After reading quite a few fight reports on Jackson, he had many assets, with his lone drawback being just better than average chin for the times.
Based on what? How can you say whether they were better or not? It is very well established that Sullivan broke his arm in the Cardiff fight, so this is irrelevant. This is not in fact true. I don't see how this statement can be justified. Sullivan beat the top contenders over a much longer period, and in far more dominant fashion. Your argument is based on an unsupported assumption that the contenders of era A are better than those of era B. In terms of dominance against the best contenders of their respective primes, Sullivan has the better resume, and it isn't particularly close. I think that the key problem here, is that you don't understand Sullivan's era, or even who the best contenders were and why! Sullivan arguably has more title defenses than Joe Louis! Yes he did. He cleaned out his division until he was well past his prime. You are measuring him against the contenders of the next era, not the contenders of his own era! His career barely overlaps with Jackson or Slavin, if at all in practical terms!
Maher had one pro fight, at Middleweight. Boxrec can be a dangerous tool. This is what I posted, the underlining is new; "Based on what Jackson was doing up to 1888, the men he was fighting and either losing to or struggling with were Farnan and Lees, do you think they were better than Burke, McCaffrey, Cardiff, Ryan, Herald, Greenfield? Based on the fact that he DID get fit for the Kilrain fight. Sullivan was no man-eater 1883-1887 but Jackson was nothing until then." I further wrote; "Peter beats Sully 1888 to 1892 in my opinion despite the fact that his style gave Jackson most trouble but by this time frame he was shot and Jackson was very, very good." I also acknowledge that in my opinion Jackson's resume is greater than Sullivan's or Corbett's. No evidence that he had only an averge chin but their is evidence that he was not comfortable with rough and tumble fighters, ie Farnan, Lynch, Lambert, Goddard and Fallon. Jackson defeating Mitchell ten years after Sully is also meaningless in this context. Time-frame is everything when evaluating boxers from the distant past.
Box Rec requires a newspaper read on the fight last time I checked. Maher was in the ring several times before he meet Jackson is my interpretation. I think the fighters I mentioned Jackson beat were better than Burke, McCaffrey, Cardiff, Ryan, Herald, Greenfield. Also Jackson beat Cardiff more impressively than Sullivan did in 1887. Peter was active in 1887 and winning often. In 1886 he beat Dooley, and Lees, two good fighters of the time, so he was on the rise beating name guys in 1886. The Franan loss was 1894, when he was starting out. I agree the time frame is everything, and in Sullivan case he was mediocre in the mid 1880's. We agree Jackson's resume is better. I called Jackson's chin better than average, meaning the punchers if they landed could floor him. I was taking about Corbett dusting Mitchell in there rounds. Mitchell was 32 and active, not that old. Mitchell is probably Sullivan's best gloved win.
Mat is basically the authority on Maher. If his opinion is that Maher had one pro fight, then I would be inclined to believe him.
I remember you saying how Siler didn't think much of Johnson! Make up your mind! Siler basically said Jackson was Johnson's superior as a two fisted puncher ,but that there was little between them for science,as the quote I posted shows. Siler's opinion of Johnson was published in 1907and written a year earlier,1906 ,two years before Johnson won the title and went on to beat 8 challengers over the next seven years! Its entirely probable Silers opinion of Johnson would have gone up considerably had he written it in 1915! Johnson respected Jackson and visited his grave You want to side with Siler? That's fine, as long as you are consistent,for example,he went into print stating the verdict for Hart over Johnson was," a very strange decision!" No doubt you agree with him now!lol
He was a flat out drunk much earlier on his fabled cross country tours in 83 and 84.. he gained tons of weight, did not train, drank to access and often performed poorly but benefitted from fighting basically an assortment of non-professional fighters .. There is no doubt John L was a natural with terrific skill but he was such an anomaly that he got by despite terrible drinking .. it's amazing he lasted as long as he did on any level and his going almost 21 rounds at 34 against Corbett under M of Q rules was an exceptional accomplishment all things considered ..
