I don't see any basis for the claim. Did he even fight in any bareknuckle contests other than against Jem Smith and John L Sullivan?
This argument doesn't make a lot of sense. You are saying more known boxers of this era are HOFers, but way less of the boxers from this era are known. If it's easier for boxers of the era to become HOFers that would be out of all boxers not just known ones. Since we don't know how many unknown boxers there were it's all just speculation.
If we take (for example) the year 1891, we can find 996 KNOWN boxers in BoxRec's database, who were active that year (at least one pro fight during the calendar year). These are the boxers the selection committee have had to chose from, when inducting HOFers. So far 15 of those 996 have been inducted: Jimmy Barry Joe Choynski Jim Corbett Nonpareil Dempsey George Dixon Mike Donovan Bob Fitzsimmons Young Griffo Peter Jackson Jake Kilrain Jack McAuliffe Kid McCoy Charlie Mitchell Tommy Ryan Myst. Billy Smith So, that's very close to 1.5% of the KNOWN boxers from 1891, that have made in into the HOF. For last year, 2018, BoxRec has registered 23,535 active boxers - that they know of! How big a percentage of those boxers will one day be in the HOF, do you think?. 1.5% like in 1891? That would be just over 350, which obviously is a ridiculous number. Maybe 35 (if we're being generous!) would be more likely, wouldn't you agree? So if that's the case, a boxer who had just one fight "above the radar" in 1891, would be about 10 times as likely to one day become a member of the HOF, as a boxer who today is registered as active by BoxRec.
But that says nothing about how easy it is for an active boxer to become a HOF in each era, because boxrec from that time is so much more incomplete. Just for example say there are 25,000 active pros today, 23,535 are active on boxrec and 35 will become HOFers Back then there were 25,000 active pros in 1891, 996 are active on boxrec for that year, 15 have become HOFers. So then it'd be over twice as hard for an active from then to become a HOFer than now, now if you are active on boxrec you'd be more likely to become a HOFer, but that's entirely because active pros would be much less likely to be on boxrec. So it's a toally vapid observation. Any attempt to calculate how hard it is to be a HOFer then VS now is spurious, as it's based on unknown numbers
Honestly, do you even in your wildest imagination think that there may have been as many active pro boxers back in 1891 as today? And that 96% of them fought in a parallel universe that no one has ever heard about? If you're not interested in a serious debate, why don't you just say so?
Key point. Corbett was better than all the names you listed. Baer was a poor boxer. Limited jab. Could not always land that big shot as the numerous decision losses show.
If you're interested in a serious debate try actually reading my post instead of vaguely skiming it and making wild guesses? Like my whole point being the number of active fighters from that period is unknown so it's pointless speculation. I could also point out you just guessed the number of active fighters who will become HOFers, would've made a lot more sense to pick a date in the 70's so you'd actually have a figure to compare it to. Boxrec doesn't care much about having good records from the 1800's. Anyone can go onto a news archive and easilly find tons of fights not on Boxrec, including fights for titles. They used a trading card for a fighters record recently when the fights could easilly be found in Sporting Life. The undercard is usually incomplete or missing entirely from the fights they do have. Several early fighters, Johnny Coulon off the top of my head, mentioned having fights that weren't even recorded at the time. There are loads of reports of fights having happened where no record can be found. Modern fights are now added to boxrec by the commisions reporting them to them. For back then it needs to have been reported in a newspaper or record book, neither of which will be intended to be exhaustive, and someone needs to find it and decide to add it to Boxrex, when it's far from a priority for them, and add in legal issues which could often harm the reporting. I'm almost certain you know most if not all of this already, so I'm not sure why you are playing stupid.
WHERE is all people now saying Corbett was nothing you knot head saying Jimmy Ellis would make dogmeat out of JIM show your facenow
I wouldnt necessarily pick Corbett to beat Loughran or Schaaf. I see you didn't take up my offer to compare the quality of their opponents at 20 and 21. The numerous[5] decision losses show Baer was fighting very good class opponents when he was pre prime whilst Corbett was feasting on non entities. Five pre prime losses out of 46 fights prior to winning the title and a signature ko win over Schmeling which tops any win Corbett managed. Baer was not a boxer he was a 210lbs 6'2,5" slugger who could hit like a truck. Corbett was ko'd with one body shot from a middleweight. Floored and beaten up by crude Sharkey. Baer just might have another Frankie Campbell on his hands if he took this fight.
Not a great win, but William Miller was not a nonentity, he'd beaten Larry Foley and outpointed Joe Goss. It seems Corbett's second entered the ring intentionally to make him lose that fight for bets. The reports are all over the place in terms of how it was going. One had Sharkey achieving little other than making him uncomfortable. He seems to have been doing better as it went on too. I don't recall Corbett being floored, but it was a bit ago I read the reports.
