How good was Peter Jackson?

The thing is that we don't really know how good most of his challengers were, because of the paucity of contemporary records.

It is fair to say that they included the best challengers available at the time, and on that basis it is hard to say for sure that the best of the next era were better.

 

Might I ask why you think that Mitchell is Sullivan's best gloved win?

He lost to at least three of Sullivan's other opponents, so the proposition looks a bit tenuous.

 

There is a logic to that .. I guess the question is if the records are incomplete therefore discounting the experience level of the opposition or not ..

 

Who was Sullivan's best title win? Mitchell at least fought people I recognize. He had a solid record, not to mentioned floored Sullivan.

 

He fought people you recognize!

That is kind of akin to admitting that you don't know much about the fighters of the era.

Given that he lost to more than one of Sullivan's other title challengers, he is clearly not any sort of standout among the bunch!

 

This content is protected

Mendoza: Historical mention says Maher and Slaivn were better than those who Sullivan beat, and if we examine the records this rings true.

You can see the Slavin or Maher as picks for top fighters from historians. You don't see this for the Sullivan opponents Burke, McCaffrey, Cardiff, Ryan, Herald, Greenfield.

This content is protected

Was it in round one? Why did Sullivan have short matches in the mid 1880's.. Maybe because he didn't have the steam to go 10 rounds or more.

This content is protected

Mendoza: Wow, how can you say that? Richard K Fox tried to make the match, Sullivan puled a Riddick Bowe and put the belt in the trash.

This content is protected

It is true. He wanted no part of Slavin.

This content is protected

Mendoza: Wow again. Jackson was far more tested than Sullivan ever was in terms of fighting top competition. Matt thinks so, I'd imagine anyone familiar with the era would agree. Jackson fought better men. List the men Jackson fought then List the men sullivan fought, Clear difference.

This content is protected

Mendoza: You're the person telling me how quick his prime went. For all we know he was Tommy Morrison on the way up before he meet Ray Mercer, beating much smaller men, and sometimes much older men, without meeting the best two black and best two white contenders while he was active.

This content is protected

Mendoza. No-no. 1 ) I'm saying Jackson fought and beat better in the same decade. 2) I'm saying Sullivan signature wins aren't even among the top 3 in his decade.

This content is protected

Mendoza: Not really. List the ten best gloved fighters of the 1880's, you see Sullivan 1 ) did not fight the best when they were active and 2 ) ducked the best by either drawing the color line or just simply avoid a fight with the likes of Slavin. Also I have historians list, the trump card here who list men that were better than Sullivan fought....as they are not listed save Corbett who easily defeated him at age 32.

This content is protected

Mendoza: And I'd pick Louis competition in general to clean up on these barn events that you might call title shots

This content is protected

This content is protected

Sullivan simply did not fight the elite of the times. Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, Godfrey, The big puncher from Minnesota that I can not recall right now, others...

This content is protected

Mendoza: Wow again. Cleaning out the division is fighting everybody, something Sullivan certainly did not do. No one here would agree with that. Janitor your a swell fellow but some of your options here are just not so. Sullivan has a long list of excuses.

 

So we saying Sullivan prime ended in 1883, and prior to that he was tested vs no one of serious ability. Janitor of course may cry foul....fine show us the ring records and accolades of the fighter he beat. IF you cannot find them or a historian saying they measured up to fighters a decade or two later, the logical conclusion is they just didn't.

Drinking was common those days, we can probably say the same things for some of Sullivan's opponents. The size of the men he fought were small, or old. Sullivan wasn't drunk vs Corbett, he was 33. The difference between the two in skills was night and day.

Sullivan wisely did not try a comeback, but he sparred with Sharkey, and Jeffries. Sullivan said point blank he had no chance vs Jeffries as their skills levels were different Using his own words I see a 5'10" guy, who very likely had limited boxing skills and fought in a time of few punchers most of whom have what we would view as very little defense or lateral mobility. Sullivan did not really train the way modern fighters do either. There is film of Sullivan hitting a bag. It's worth a look, but be warned he looks beyond terrible, even for a guy his 50's. He can barely make first contact with a speed bag.

 

Maher was a novice when he fought Jackson, so he is an irrelevance in this discussion.

I suspect that Slavin was better than Sullivan's opponents, but then James Douglas's best win was better than Larry Holmes's best win.

The sport became a lot more legal formalized, between the primes of Burke, McCaffrey, and Cardiff, and those of Slavin and Maher.

This means that there was a lot more media coverage of the sport, and a much clearer idea of the records of the fighters from Slavin and Maher's era.

Sullivan had short matches in the 1880s because that was the only kind of match that was legal at the time.

If you didn't know this, then you need to stick to the eras that you are good at!

Sullivan retired after the Killrain fight, and later announced that he would only fight again for a sum of $25 000.

Slavin's backers simply couldn't come up with the money.

Corbett's backers did, so he got the fight instead.

Even if we accept that Jackson beat a couple of men who were better than anybody that Sullivan beat, the fact remains that Sullivan was beating the top contenders over a period of a decade.

The only argument for Jackson hangs upon one or two good wins, that might not be all that good in practice.

Sullivan's prime did go quickly, and still he kept beating the top contenders, for year after year after year.

He was just so far ahead of everybody else that it didn't matter.

Then you don't know the decade.

I would challenge you to name anybody, who was a legitimate contender before Sullivan's retirement in 1888, who was better than the men he beat.

Stop prattling about Jackson ans Slavin, because they are not even contenders from the same era!

You are basically measuring Sullivan against the best contenders of the 1890s, which is frankly ridiculous!

The only man on that list who was a factor while Sullivan was active was Godfrey.

While it is true that Sullivan did not fight Godfrey, he did beat the man who beat Godfrey.

He also tried twice to a arrange a fight with Godfrey.

Sullivan doesn't really need excuses.

You need to pull your head out of the 1890s, and start looking at who was actually in the picture while Sullivan was active.

 

Some key dates:

July 8 1889, Sullivan defeats Killrain, and announces his retirement from he ring (he later says that he will return but only for $25 000).

April 24 1891, Frank Slavin first lands on American soil.

June 16 1891 Frank Slavin defeats Jake Killrain.

July 22 1891, Slavin fights an exhibition against Charlie Mitchell and gets battered around the ring.

May 21 1891, Jackson and Corbett fight to a draw.

May 30 1892, Jackson defeats Slavin, putting him out of front line contention (some recognise it as being for the vacant title).

September 7 1892, Corbett defeats Sullivan to win the lineal title.

So in summary you have a one year period between Slavin landing in America, and losing to Peter Jackson. During this period he defeats Killrain, but then has a bad showing against an inactive Charlie Mitchell, and fights further exhibitions against Mitchell up to his loss to Jackson.

During this period Sullivan is nominally retired, and Slavin's backers cannot come up with the guarantee that he is asking for.

I would say that the case for Sullivan ducking Slavin is fragile at best, as is the case for Slavin being a contemporary fighter.

 

Yes, referee George Siler who saw them both felt Jackson was better by long odds. Pretty cut and dry.

But wait, what about another source? How about the man who trained them both?

Sam Fitzpatrick, a trainer for both Peter Jackson and Jack Johnson, stated that of the two, Jackson was the superior boxer.

[url]https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/mg874n/this-was-a-man-the-forgotten-story-of-australian-boxing-pioneer-peter-jackson[/url]

So there you have it, two sources in the know who say Peter Jackson was better.

 

Jackson sprained an ankle and had a cold he could not train for the ten days prior to the Corbett fight.
Source CBZ

 

Fitzpatrick trained NEITHER he was a manager of both and only briefly at that.

George Siler died before Johnson won the title so he only saw the start of his career and he stated that for cleverness their was nothing to choose between Jackson and Johnson.Some deliberate misleading going on here.