Rank em; Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Johnson

What do you mean? If they were the same size would the same results bear out?

 

1. Sullivan (GOAT)




2. Fitz
3. Johnson
4.Jeffries
5. Corbett

 

H2H (assuming everyone’s in their prime):

1. Jack Johnson
2. James J. Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. John L. Sullivan
5. James J. Corbett

P4P:

1. Jack Johnson
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. John L. Sullivan
4. James J. Jeffries
5. James J. Corbett

 

H2H:
Jeffries
Johnson
Sullivan
Fitzsimmons
Corbett

P4P (i assume in terms of greatness and not h2h p4p which doesnt make sense):
Fitzimmons

Big drop off

Sullivan
Jeffries
Johnson

Big drop off

Corbett

 

H2H, beyond what we can read into actual results and fight reports, is tricky given the paucity of quality film and I exclude Sullivan from my rankings as I don't know enough about his opposition pre-Corbett.

Based on the actual records of the others:

At HW I have it:

Johnson
Jeffries

Corbett
Fitz

P4P I have it:

Fitz

Johnson
Jeffries
Corbett

 

H2H in prime
1. Johnson by a fair margin
2. Jeffries
3. Fitz
4. Sullivan
5. Corbett

PFP
1. Fitz by a good bit
2. Johnson
3. Jeffries
4. Sullivan
5. Corbett

 

If Fitz is better P4P hes better H2H because he was around the same height and reach as these guys except Jeffries. Fitzsimmons wasn't a MW coming up to HW he was a HW going down to MW. He liked fighting light and if he were the same size as Jeffries he'd be below the LHW limit anyway because he liked being light as possible.

Also Fitz fought at MW when it was the 2nd biggest weight class.

H2H its Johnson, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sullivan. If everyones in their prime Fitz goes up to 2nd.

 

Johnson
Fitzsimmons
Jeffries
Corbett
Sullivan

 

The P's in P4P stand for pound, not inches.

Besides, Johnson and Corbett were taller than Fitz, too.

Fitz was not as big as the other 4, just as Hearns and Fundora aren't as big as Tyson and Tua.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this ranking.

As for H2H, you just can't scientifically rate some of these guys on pure ability when there's little, poor, or no film.
Sullivan may have well been a more proficient pugilist than Jeffries!

 

I'm going to do quite a bit of thinking aloud before I make a ranking (of Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries and Johnson, and will also include Peter Jackson, and perhaps some comment on Sam Langford).

Sullivan arguable first or last on such a ranking. Jeffries and Johnson should be in top three.
Not easy to separate Corbett and Jackson.

Default is Fitzsimmons ahead of Corbett, due to (Carson City '97)-h2h and TSharkey comparisons; a bit of digging throws some challenge to that default -- Fitzsimmons disinclination to give Corbett a return, Corbett perhaps closer to actually beating Jeffries, [EDIT: 1892 Sullivan might have had more of a brief chance against prime Fitzsimmons than prime Corbett],Corbett willing to face Jackson, and how they 'travel', i.e, whether (as heavyweight) Corbett's quick/clever/skill approach might have bloomed better in later eras that weren't so long/finish attrition fight oriented.

And how does Langford compare with Fitzsimmons (and Corbett and Jackson)?

Sullivan, in one 1902 interview, saying, on his actual 1880's form, Jeffries would have done him; in another 1902 interview regarding the current crop, "Oh to be 22 again" (rough quote). I think, yes, 1903 would probably have done 1882 Sullivan; not sure if Jeffries would have beat a focused 'Sullivan-endowment' coming along in his own time, peaking along with Jeffries.

Jack Johnson had skill, shut down strength, smarts, economy of energy, with timing and judgement of distance, that would make none of these other guys eager to match with him.