John L Sullivan vs Jack Dempsey.

Impossible to say.

We know how good Dempsey was, but we don't really know how good Sullivan was.

I get the idea that they were stylistically quite similar.

 

Sullivan wins a drinking contest between the two.

 

You are right, if by more proven, you mean more of a known quantity.

I guess the argument comes down to game theory.

There are more plausible scenarios where Dempsey is better than Sullivan, than there are plausible scenario's were Sullivan is better than Dempsey.

In the absence of anything better, you pick Dempsey on that logic.

 

We’ve never seen Sullivan in action. But I picked Dempsey regardless given that he beat a broader range of fighters with proven quality when the game was beginning to be more organized

 

Imagine if John L fought like Ricardo Lopez and everything we know is wrong about the entire era.

 

That's arguable.

That's wrong, but you keep repeating this narrative.

 

We have a lot of reports of Sullivan training routine. Some examples:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/john-l-sullivan-training-camp.538639/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-sullivans-training-regimen-and-diets.648801/

 

Sullivan went through these odd bouts of self-deprecation in his later years where he would mope around saying that the game had already passed him by and that he would have no chance against any of the current contenders, yet he would tell other reporters that he liked his chances against Jeffries, with a little twinkle in his eye. He would say that even in his prime he wouldn't have been able to land on Corbett, yet demanded a title shot when Fitzsimmons took the belt from him; so it's hard to really say how he felt about these things.

 

Hard to pick in some ways but from what we know about John L, I choose Dempsey. Hard fight maybe for both tho.

 

In the 1880's I pick Sullivan by ko in a brutal encounter, you have to favor Jack in his era.