Where would you rank him all-time? Can a case be made for a top ten slot? Who would have won - he or Peter Jackson, had Jackson and not Corbett received a title shot? Who would have won in their respective primes? How would he have fared against Rocky Marciano and James J. Jeffries over 15 three minute rounds?
I usually have him in the top seven. I tend to go a lot on how I think guys would do against each other if they came along at the same time. Sullivan was one of, if not indeed the best, fighters in the world for about ten years. I think he peaked mid-1881 to mid'1883 (after he straightened out his punches, before the boozing). Several guys (Mike Donovan, also the brother of 1881 opponent Jack Burns) who saw him at that point were still saying, post-Johnson, that prime Sullivan was the best heavy ever; Jack MacAuliffe said the same thing, after the Baer-Carnera fight. Sullivan, trained and in his prime, had fast hands, two fisted power, moved like a big cat, was not easy to hit, took punches well, had considerable stamina, immense confidence, and an aggressive but not excessively excitable disposition. I think Jackson would have beaten Sullivan in 1892. I'd favor Sullivan if he'd met Jackson, instead of Kilrain, in 1889. Fighting at his very best, I'd favor Sullivan over Corbett; however, undertained or fighting impatiently, even a younger Sullivan might have lost to Corbett or (those less likely) Jackson. Time machined together, I'd favor Marciano; coming along at the same time I'd favor Sullivan. At his best I'd favor Sullivan against Jeffries in 15 rounds; I'd also favor Sullivan against 1900 Jeffries over 25 rounds; a 25 round fight against 1903-1904 Jeffries could go either way. IMO, just as Sullivan/Dempsey/Tyson form a sort of lineage, so do Jeffries/Marciano/Frazier.
Sullivan dominated the era for a near decade but his opponents would not be classed as ATG's,imo. He ducked Jackson, did not fight Godfrey though I beleive he nearly did,and the best man he met beat him ,though of course he was dissipated beyond help by then. Sullivan deserves a ton of credit for putting boxing ,particularly Queens -bury rules boxing on the map,but I cant rate him in the top 10 ,or even 20 I think he would flounder under the modern rules,A great fighter for his time.
I work at a radio station, and ever since my boss found out I love boxing and he loves history, we have talked about doing a radio play on Sullivan.
I think it is hard to compare Sullivan to Marciano. For bareknuckle fighting you need antother punching technique then for gloved fights. And in Sullivans days they fought for more rounds then in Marciano's time. So they both trained differently for wath was waiting for them. I think in a bareknuckle fight Sullivan would have beat Marciano. In a gloved fight Marciano would have beat Sullivan.
Ok I got it all wrong. Sullivan was a gloved fighter. Altough he was strong from what I have seen fighters in his time did not have the skills of a guy like Marciano. Marciano would knock him out.
It's hard to evaluate Sullivan, but I'll give it a shot. My opinion on your questions: Sullivan is not in my top 10, but he is in my top 20. At that point (1892), I think Jackson would have defeated Sullivan. Prime against prime, I think Sullivan would have defeated Jackson. Prime against prime, I think Jeffries and Marciano would have defeated Sullivan, but it wouldn't have been easy.
