Top 10 P4P To Fight In Australia.

There was apoint around thelate 1800s when Australian fighters were making serious inroads into the American division, and posed a serious threat to American supremacy.

Only some key duckings prevented it from becoming a full on America vs Australia showdown.

You had Torpedo Billy Murphy and Young Griffo dominating the featherweight division between them. Griffo could have beaten any lightweight in the world potentialy.

Bob Fitzsimmons took the middleweight crown (and later heavyweight)

Peter Jackson and Frank Slavin menaced the heavyweight division.

 

bob fitz was english. end of.

 

As an englishman I am anxious to claim Bob Fitzsimmons for my country.

In this context however, we do have to recognise that he was a product of the Australian boxing bonanza.

 

Good thread.

1 Langford
2 Moore
3 Fitzsimmons
4 Johnson
5 McVey

Not too sure on the next five yet.

 

It is a near impossible list. Pound for pound, Tommy Burns is a fair chance also. Peter JAckson was up there but may struggle under the pound for pound rule. Kostya is an obvious one, Azumah Nelson definitely is up there. The list is endless.

 

Janitor.. Please.. enough is enough..

Stop talking so much bull****. You claim to have incredible 'contemporary' intelligence, undestanding and realiistic views mate.. Well, I suggest you stop wasting your time reading newspaper articles written by Pro-Yank scribes.

Torpedo Billy Murphy was a Kiwi (New Zealander). He won the CROWN in the USA.. the title was 'forfeited' when he'd left the USA, only to be claimed by a past KO victum of no repute.

'Griffo' could have beaten any Lightweight in the world potentially...?? I think you mean, 'Griffo couldn't give a **** about the clowns he whipped, the Max Moore decisions, the belts, titles or prestige'.. unless it was presented in the shape of a bottle. Can you possibly imagine Griffo.. having contested 100+ Oz bouts before heading to the USA in order to fight 6 rounders against sulky Yanks with the Ref holding their hands..?? No Dec. contests etc.. lol.. 'Supremacy' you call it.. ???

'American Supremacy'?? You're ****ing joking!!! When?? What dominance??? Who??? Every Yank that came to Oz was pelted into normality by 'mediocre' country boys. Other than Larry Foley, who'd been accompanied by Jem Mace on regional tours (Mace still considered Foley the greatest fighter he'd ever seen), very, very few Aussies had recieved any foreign tutorage.. and that includes Foley. James Kitchen, Bendigo etc etc had no real impact at all.. in fact, Bendigo in Oz is still questioned!!

Duckings??? Yes.. Let's start with John L... **** Pot coward. Stop crapping on about 'American Supremacy'.. that's the kind of rubbish most Americans still believe in..

I would suggest to everyone of you, the 'American Supremacy' began with Negro Champions as they rose in each division..... Prior to that 'American Ignorance' ruled most divisions via reluctance to face a force of equal/ superior standard.

 

LOL... exactly.. America 'boasted' to have the highest number of Champs in the divisions.. Nothing more, nothing less.

"In his prime Sullivan could have blah blah blah.." Bull****!!! Who are you talking about Janitor?? Which two?? Herbert Slade and Charlie Mitchell?? Or the usual vaudeville boys that, if they looked likely to trouble John L., would be donged from behind the curtain by a bloke with a mallett. Who are two well credentialed H/W's that John L. could have beaten on the same night?? Goddard and Jackson?? Foley and Farnan?? Maybe Paddy Slavin and Paddy Slavin.. lol.. I do have to ask, when exactly was John L's prime??? Perhap's you kindly point out that it was infact when he was defending his big mouth claims by facing nobodies and much smaller nobodies.


Again, you idealistic timing of 'American supremacy' is nothing more than 'American dictated' title claimancy. John L.was nothing more than the Champion of the USA. Credit to you Janitor, you're a very keen observer of the games history and assume a passion for these old warriors. My own views differ and remain fixed in the arguement against Sullivan.

 

I am a huge John L fan, but you do raise a good point that is hard to rebutt. There was certainly a time when Jackson could beat John L and probably Goddard also. I doubt John L ever beats them both on the same night.

His best chance would have been against Foley and Farnan. It is sad that we never found out who was the better fighter. You would think John L would win, but then again i couldnt imagine John L ever beating Peter Jackson as comprehensively as farnan did. I am wondering whether John L is really necessarilly all that much better than an alphabet champion, he never beat Australia's best, but at this time Australia's best generally did beat the rest.

Do you think that the lack of Farnan and Foley on John Ls resume is a black mark. Janitor is always talking about a lack of depth in the era. if Farnan and Foley had fought John L, all of a sudden his depth of challenger would ahve looked better. Of course, if they beat him, his legacy would have taken a pretty big hit.

I am interested in what Janitor or ideally someone like appollack has to say about John Ls refusal to meet the best that has come from Australia. Certainly, the Aussies didnt hide behind any colour line.

 

Boiler.. the color line was never a factor in Australia, as you know. Nor was pretence, marketability, illegitimate claims from fighters/promoters or concerns of making the tall poppy fall.

Foley was around a bit too early for Sullivan to be a consideration..
Jackson was a contender in Sullivans eyes.. until 1892. As was Godfrey.
Farnan was touted as a challenger... alas, a genuine white fighter with strength, courage and the Pacific ocean to keep safely from view.
Goddard made his presence felt Whilst Sullivan was in Oz.. Poor John L. sulked rather chilishly about 'Them Australian Challengers'..


The fact Sullivan remarked often and loudly of the ability to 'lick any son of a ***** in the World' is perhaps the biggest black mark on his name. I wonder of his willingness to 'lick' an ice cream.. should be chocolate flavoured, let alone Australian made.

 

Yep.... Here we go again.. 1881- 1885. In this period, is see nothing fantastic in Sullivans record. Jackson tackled Farnan in 1884, being beaten twice.. Why dismiss Jackson so quickly?? Sullivan had claimed right thru his career that he'd fight a negro, including Godfrey in 1881..

I like your play in words too Janitor.. "people he was fighting were the best that could be put in front of him.." meaning, Sullivan ventured no great distance to meet a genuine challenger to his title, nor did he have the balls to face any worthy opponent whilst in their own backyards and still claiming H/W domination. His prime may have been no longer than 3 years.. the truth to this we'll never know, due to reluctance to face the very best available to him.

I'd suggest Peter Jackson as a likely challenger by 1886 onwards, as well as Slavin and Goddard in the latter stages of Sullivans hogging of the Crown. Bill Farnan has obviously impressed with his handling of Jackson, and Tom Lees is another Aussie with powerful mitts.. Both readily available in 1884- 1885... This was Sullivans prime right??