Top ten head to head heavies pre-Dempsey

Do you think that, as a draw, it is better than any Sullivan result?

Or six.

It's also scarey to think what McCaffrey may have done with Sullivan if he weren't so small.

 

I am troubled by draws.

On the one hand, it indicates that Corbett was the equal, or near equal of Jackson, who was then more established. Assuming Sullivan's equality to Jackson, though it was considered and more, requires more conjecture because it is based upon dominance. Sometimes a dominant champion steps up in size or class and gets durled. Evidence of the draw is direct.

That's one (Strange) direction to go in. Another would be, Sullivan had trouble with the best technician that he met despite an absolutely colossal weight advantage. It would seem reasonable then, to presume, that an even more skilled boxer who also happens to be thirty pounds heavier, is going to give him more trouble.

 

This is my point.

It's not "somebody" though, and it's not "based on a draw against somebody" and it's not "better". Apart from that...

Obviously Corbett did other great work, it's just that at the very highest level he boxed a draw. At the very highest level, Sullivan has a loss.

Do you agree that McCaffrey was the amongst best technician that Sullivan met until he met Corbett?

Do you agree that Sullivan struggled a bit with McCaffrey?

Obviously it is not a complete given, but there is absolutely no footage of Sullivan in a fight. We need to embrace conjecture to try to understand what was happening. You are saying that

a) Sullivan "ate" technicians

b) that McCaffrey was a technican

c) that Corbett was a technician

d) that Sullivan had a tough time with McCaffrey.

On the one hand, you want to claim that Sullivan is not at a style deficit to Corbett because he "Ate" his eras technicians, but on the other hand you want to dismiss the possibility that he would struggle against Corbett based upon his struggling with the best technician he met in that time.

This does not seem reasonable.

 

Yes, but that is completely irrelevant. Corbett and Sullivan are both great fighters. Holmes and Douglas are not.

Is it massive? I am convinced that Corbett's era is better, yes. You could even say that Corbett beat the best that Sullivan beat in Mitchell. As we are in agreement that it is better, I see this as something of a non-issue.

Well we are going firmly round in circles here, but i'd say that labelling a man who failed to put away the second best technician he ever met despite a thirty pound weight advantage and got thrashed against the best technician he met whilst past his prime "one of the better destroyers of technicians the sport has ever seen" is a little strong to say the very least.

 

Because it stretches the point to absolute breaking point.

Wonderful logic, but unfortunately Douglas did, almost every time.

All arguments are "unreliable" in trying to pick out the superior of two boxers with almost no footage available of them. That's not reason not to use them.

Yes, any fighter might beat any other fighter on any given night.

What possible answer can i give to this question? You think Corbett's era was stronger. I think Corbett's era was stronger. It is possible that we are both wrong.

Yes, but what if not one fighter from Sullivan's era could win a single round against a single opponent from Corbett's era, and lose by knockout in the third or fourth. Then it rockets him low down!

But the best technicians of Louis's era make upon me an impression so in excess of those of Sullivan's that the question is not even sensible. However, this means nothing to you as you operate from the point of view that the Louis era may have been considerably weaker than the Sullivan era. I, on the other hand, find that ludicrous.

So you understand, I would consider that John Henry Lewis would have defeated Sullivan and didn't manage three full minutes with Louis.