Was Sullivan as great as Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali ?

From top of my head it was 88-92.

He beat george just as john l went inactive.

Inactivity vs a prime run of form such as jackson experienced? Run of form wins out for me.

I wouldn't consider sullivan the best hw in the world from the time jackson beat godfrey onwards. What did john do from this time onwards to merit a top ranking?

 

Sullivan had a resume, Jackson didn't. Like I said, beating George Godfrey who weighed around 164 or 165 pounds (estimatied by primary sources), or beating Joe McAuliffe doesn't bring that much depth to resume. Patsy Cardiff was coming off a KO loss to Killen.
He may have had the right to claim he was the best in the world no sooner than the end of 1889, but then James Corbett evened it up in early 1890. Corbett and Jackson met and had a draw, so both had about the same right for Sullivan's title. There was no single "best contender", there were two.

 

John L broke his arm in january 1987 against patsy cardiff. his next meaningful fight was against the small framed charley mitchell in a fight that in reality was a victory. he next fought in september 92 against corbett in a fight he lost.

by august 1988 when jackson beat gofrey, sullivan hadn't had a meaningful performance for over a year and corbett had very few recorded victories.

putting peter top of the tree here is a logical conclusion based on the inactivity of his peers.

in 90 corbett did very good against kilrain and mcaffrey and he was the clear number 2 behind jackson (sullivan is a non entity by this point imo) corbett had his chance to overtake jackson but they fought to a draw and within a year jackson had knocked out slavin.

corbett overtakes jackson by defeating john l in september of that year.

So in my humble opinion from august 1888 until september 1892, jackson was the best heavyweight in the world.

 

As I already said, even a semi-retired Sullivan should have been considered the best heavyweight out there, based on both ability and resume. A win over Godfrey was pretty meaningless considering he was a very small heavyweight, who didn't have a single significant victory on his resume. Joe McAuliffe win was slightly better, but only slightly. Patsy Cardiff was coming off a loss to Killen. Three meaningless wins don't make you the top fighter in the world.

 

Well you can call the wins pointless if you want but it's enough that he was established as the top contender and it's enough to outdo zero wins, which is what john l had for nearly 5 years.

Sitting on a belt is not what makes someone the top dog; beating the best opponents in the best fashion is. John l was beating noone and jackson was.

 

Thank-you! John L gets a bit underrated here as does Johnson and Jim Jeffries to a degree.

 

Sullivan was a top heavyweight for about a decade, very dominant at his best. Fast handed, explosive puncher. I wonder what would have happened if he'd have come along in Louis's time. Ali I think would have been wrong for him.
I think it would have been tough for any heavy to come along in Sullivan's day, to meet John mid 1881 to mid '83, and prevail. I think that was Sullivan's peak, when his punching had straightened out and while he was still doing some training and not hitting the liquor so hard. I think Sullivan had a short peak, and put Louis and Ali over him on that basis; but he was still a top guy for quite a while.

 

Not. Neither is Sullivan, nor is anyone else. Joe Louis' reign has nothing to complain about (there will always be someone to find something). Ali's reigns are legendary...

 

Sullivan no doubt a tremendous talent. Meeting his great succesors -- pick 20 -- by 'time machine'? He might have a couple wins. Imagining boxers coming along in each others day? A different story. 1902, when Sullivan interviewed that, could Jeffries had met him in his (Sullivan's) 1880's heyday, it would be all Jeffries way, he also did another interview, commenting on the current top heavies, and sighing, "Oh, to be twenty-two again."

I think Ali's bad for Sullivan in any scenario, assuming Queensberry. On a 'come along in each others day', I honestly think Louis/Sullivan is a 'pick'em'. I do think Louis stands higher than Sullivan as an ATG, though. I think Louis had more sustained excellence. After mid-1883, Sullivan started to get a 'I'll train if I think I need to' attitude. He mostly could get away with that in his day, though vs. Mitchell in Chantilly got pretty dicey.

 

I seems to me that, when John L. was in his prime (likely about 1881-1887), there was nobody better with or without gloves. That is about all that a boxer can be, the best in his prime and in his time (by whatever rules are in effect at that time). And he had a 10 year run as Heavyweight World Champion (1882-1892). Not too shabby.

 

In terms of resume I wouldn’t put him in their league, but in terms of being a cultural phenomenon and being head and shoulders above the talent at his peak I’d say absolutely. Also had one of the greatest comeback stories ever against Kilrain.

 

Sullivan made the championship, so yes.

They'd both beat him, though.

 

You learn something new everyday.

This almost sounds like something Ali would say in an interview when questioned about this era.

 

@janitor

This is fascinating information, can you verify? Never heard of this punching method.