Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

No, many of them we active before Sullivan retired. Never came up with the amount of money...they surely offer more the his last gloved fight before Corbett! That's an excuse.

 

They were, but they weren't legitimate threat at that time.

 

OK, taking the chronology that I have provided, tell me who he should have fought and when?

 

Complete excuse and utter nonsense .. surgical revisionism .

 

I put the same challenge to you as to red corner.

Give us the four W's.

Who, when, where and why?

 

They weren't active and better than who he fought? Come on now. Jackson was certainly active when Sullivan was.

 

Peter Jackson 1887, and Joe Goddard 1890. The press talked about and would be the best name outside of Corbett on his resume. Rhchard K Fox tried to get Sullivan in the ring with Slavin before Corbett and would be the best name Sullivan fought outside of Corbett. There is also Mick Dooley who could have been made while he was active and he sparred with Joe Choyski though no fight was offered. That's 4 plus Choynski. There was also Godfrey who he did not fight and that undefeated slugger in Minnesota name escapes me currently.

 

Oh dear!

Sullivan broke his arm in January of 1887.

Sullivan was in Europe from November 1887 to mid 1888.

Jackson wasn't even in the Northern Hemisphere until mid 1888.

Sullivan had rival title claims to resolve until he fought Kilrain in July of 1889, and he retired at ringside.

There is no way that a fight with Jackson could have been made in 1887 or 1888.

The only ways that he could have fought Jackson, would have been to fight him instead of Kilrain (who held a title claim), or postpone his retirement.

Sullivan was retired in 1890, and thus under no obligation to fight anybody.

Can you name one other time in history, where a retired champions career, was measured against contenders who were available after they retired?

Slavin was not in the Northern Hemisphere, until Sullivan was long retired, and his results on American soil were mixed.

A past prime Charlie Mitchell stuffed him, so I don't think that he would necessarily have been the second best man on Sullivan's resume.

Dooley would have been a good challenger for Sullivan, but he never came to America to challenge him.

Choynski was green when he was Sullivan's sparring partner, and nowhere near being deserving of a title shot.

 

Once again the Janitor cleans up!!!

 

Mike Dooley!

 

As regards Mitchell hammering Slavin, I thought they were best of sparring and drinking buddies and never fought a real bout against each other?.

 

That's what I thought just a series of exhibitions.

 

If you’re a fan of revisionist, romanticized fantasy you’re right. Your cheering a man who picks Sullivan over Fitz in a M of Q bout and tries to justify it with the thinnest assemblage of reasoning imaginable. That said, have another.

 

You know a lot of what you write is inconducive to fun. You lack the Charisma of @janitor this is why I tune into his channel and ignore yours- On Fitz and John L how do we know? I don't and I am sure Jan would say the same. If he did say as it was that John L would lick Fitz this is meaningless he isn't an oracle but he is as educated as they come in terms of history and so I listen to that in particular.

 

So, he was under 30! All heavyweight champs fight beyond that date. Fact. Go ahead check on all 40+ lineal champions.

He broke his arm and lost the fight, but was given a robbery of a decision. Fact.

And Slavin could have been made before Corbett, over a year before, Fact.

So he was in Europe 1888. No fight with Jackson, who most historians will tell you Sullivan avoided. He also didn't fight Goddard. Jackson was famous in Europe . In fact he was the British gloved champion which carried a lot of weight. Beating Kilrain in a bare knuckle contests is nice, but in 75 rounds to do so? Yes, his results in the USA 1884-1890 were mixed vs. a poor lot of super middles and smaller / older me as these knockouts did not come like you'd think in 4-6 rounds fights. We can review their records is you care.

He wasn't obligated to fight yet he did fight Corbett and could have fought in Europe, or Australia where he head exhibitions but didn't I say because the competition was better. He also could have fought in the USA. Could have fought Dooley in Australia but didn't. Same for Godfrey and Sullivan was active back at this time. No retirement excuses, Dooley was better than Sullivan's gloved defenses or almost all of them at the time. Dooley was the Aussie champion. Godfrey has a known record better than most Sullivan fought.

Sullvian officially retired in July 1892 at a relatively young age. Perhaps we can agree on this, the list of fighters he did not fight before 1891 is better than who he fought. Can we agree there? I think you have to, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. The challengers were there, Sullivan was not.