Sullivans time

I read a good article about the Kilrain Godfrey fight, last night.

It was previewing the fight, and it was suggesting that Kilrain, despite being bigger was nowhere near as proven a fighter as Godfrey, (despite losing to Sullivan) and it seemed to be suggesting that Godfrey would likely win. (Sorry but i have lost the links)

And McAuliffe at one stage seemed to be matched with Fitzsimmons (pre dempsey i think it might have been) but i dont think that happened or maybe if it did, it was an exhibition with Jack McAuliffe instead?

Also from what i could understand wasnt McAuliffe the chairman (or something or other) of the californian athletic club (or is this a different person).

 

I read a letter written by McCaffery and posted in one of the papers, also last night.

Basically talking about his loss to Corbett. He seemed to think that he was the better fighter but reach and size was the difference in their fight.

 

I think they were a step below the guys at the top, just like in every other era. there was the color line to but jackson was good enough to break it to become recognized as the top contender. the others just didn't do that. good fighters, but every era has the same group of guys who just don't quite break through.

 

I think Joe Goddard must be considered in the elite for the decade. He petered-out towards the end but a couple wins over Choynski, wins over Ed Smith, Maher and a seemingly legit draw with Jackson seem to testify to his talent.

 

Not really, but it wont stop me from having a go! I am enjoying reading all the old newspaper articles on these types of guys at the moment (as it is only relatively recent that i have started learning how to search the old newspaper archives)

Off the cuff, (and i am sure i will miss some obvious ones), i would guess at something like this:

1. Sullivan - I know he didnt fight quite a few good ones, particularly in Australia, and towards the end of his reign, but he was still as dominant as any champion has been. Much Like Tyson and Dempsey when at their prime were seen.
2. Foley - A big call, but it is amazing just how highly regarded he was by his peers. Clearly a great and better than his known record suggests. I read an article by him where he claims to have fought everybody, Farnan, Lees, Fitzsimmons, Jackson etc and beat them all. And he does seem to have been accepted as Australian Champion until age caught him.
3. Jackson - Another who is amazingly well regarded by his peers. So well, that he simply must have had some impressive 'exhibition' results we dont know about. Even Fitzsimmons regarded him as his superior at one stage. I had always worried about the Goddard draw, although i did read recently that Jackson had just got off the boat and had zero training and condition whereas Goddard was in top shape.
4. Jim Corbett - Has to be ranked somewhere near Jackson, and it is pickem really, as they did draw, despite Jackson's excuses. He also beat Kilrain in a short fight which i think from memory he won comfortably, but Kilrain thought he would have won the fight if it were a finish fight.

5. Farnon - His wins over Jackson were impressive but, i got the feeling that Jackson hadnt come close to peaking as this was before he linked with Foley and lerned the artform fully. it sounds silly nowadays, but while there were always good trainers, i do think that some of the 'basics' we take for granted nowadays were sometimes neglected by some trainers.
6. Jake Kilrain - His resume probably isnt known to be as good as some others, but he was big enough and did beat some good fighters.
7. William Miller - I hate to put him this high, because he seems more a wrestler than boxer, but he did virtually beat an old Larry Foley.
8. Goddard - I have always rated him very highly, particularly with the Jackson draw, but i have dropped him just a little recently.
9. Charley Mitchell - I dont normally rate him that highly because i think he was pretty much completely outclassed by Sullivan, despite his draw, but he was highly rated throughout England so i have put him in.
10. Jem Smith - Drew With Kilrain and had a pretty good win loss record, he seems to be one of the hidden guys who was better than he is usually remembered.


How did i do, any severe criticisms?

 

I think they were a golden age, their results stack up very well, which is quite unusual when you consider that gloved fighting was only its infancy stages.

 

Give me a couple of weeks to put some decent thought into it.

I think that i would rate Godfrey the highest on the list, probably from Ryan, at the moment.

 

I have to say that I find myself at odds with most points on your list.

I think that your list is somewhat Australiocentric, that Foley and Farnan are too high, and by extensin Miller is. I also question your decision to rank them over certain American and British contenders whose paper acomplishments are somewhat more tangible e.g. Charlie Mitchell.

You laud Farnan for his win over Peter Jackson, but it might just be like giving the same acolades to Gypsie Daniels because of his win over a verry green Max Schmeling.

I think that Dominick McCaffrey should rank higher than Charlie Mitchell on such a list but he dosnt even make your top 10.

I dont think that Jem Smith gets sold short at all. Indeed much of what he acomplished on paper was due to bad home town reffereing. I think there are a couple of Britsh contenders of the era who desrever to be ranked higher such as Alf Greenfield or even Tug Wilson.

 

Corbett Kilrain fight:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected