Why isn't John L Sullivan ranked above Ali?

Some of Sullivan's bouts were bare knuckle affairs which cannot be factored into his gloved boxing record. The rules were very different and he also drew the color line. It's difficult to even place Ali and Sullivan in the same sporting category. Guys in Sullivan's era could get away with lots of blatant wrestling and rough housing. There was far less international fighting going on back then too.

It's very difficult to compare the careers and resumes of HWs who fought before Joe Louis' era to more recent heavies. Louis and his peers at least fought under similar rules and had a more textbook Orthodox stance with a more coherent ranking/belt system. The guys in Ali's era have almost nothing in common with Sullivan and his peers other than the fact it was two shirtless guys wearing gloves fighting with a referee. Even the gloves themselves were drastically different. Some guys back then fought on dirt or outside pubs and simply got money from a crowd to pay the boxers.

 

Bro I hope your joking but in case you’re not look at it this way. You have to find out who the numbers on their records are. Ali has fought much tougher opposition that Sullivan. Which is why Ali has lost more times and why Sullivan has won more times.

 

Louis was to slow and had a bad defence. Modern fighters such as Fury or Usyk would demolish him with quick hands and superior movement.

 

Which alt is it?

 

Lol just speaking facts bro. You telling me Louis could beat Fury or Usky? Or if we’re talking someone Louis’s size do you think he would beat Bivol or someone a bit older like Roy?

 

If rankings existed in those days, Sullivan’s list of fights against top 10 fighters is probably something like this:

Dalton - Won
Ryan - Won
Collins - Won
Mitchell - Won
Greenfield - Won
Greenfield - Won
Ryan - Won
Burke - Won
McCaffrey - Won
Cardiff - Draw
Mitchell - Draw
Kilrain - Won
Corbett - Lost

He didn’t fight Jackson, Miller, Smith or Slavin, and put off fighting Kilrain for a number of years.

10 wins against ranked opposition is good, but without looking I’m sure it’s not as good as Ali.

 

Yes, I do.

 

He probably thinks they are.
He always downplays Ali.

 

CT are you saying the epic and extremely necessary trilogy with Wilder and the snoozefest fight with an ancient Wlad are not enough to rate Fury above Ali? Do you expect Fury to face top talent frequently or something?

 

Right, I wonder why this logic never crosses their mind when people denigrate the 1890's-1910's. The men who would go on to coach the talent of the 20s and 30s were men who would have fought during the aforementioned era. Perfect example being Jack Blackburn. It is just nonsense to say that the men of the 19th and very early 20th century had no talent or skill in the ring.

 

Perhaps because Ali fought much better opponents?

 

Cause the level of his era was too poor.
Every sport has to have some sort of starting point from when it starts to become advanced/professional enough to matter.
In boxing, that's around the 1920s for me. Or in the most optimistic scenario, we can start off around the early 1900s.
But even so, the level of the era must still be taken into account when assessing achievements.

 

No exactly. IMO boxing started to reach it's limits (human limits) in terms of skill in the 70s and it kinda peaked from the 80s to modern times.
The HW division reached an all time high peak in the 90s. However, that doesn't mean that any champ/contender from that era is automatically better than a previous era contender/champion.