BoxRec

Robinson wrote:I am interested in Peter Jackson. What was his best tool ? was he
a good jabber?

--- Understand he was a straight up boxer/puncher of the period. 1-2 his forte, straight shots.

Corbett took him the distance because Corbett was a runner and tired him out until the fight became sloppy after the 25th rd or so.

Sullivan/Jackson would be interesting because Jackson is right there to be engaged. Queensbury rules obviously favor Jackson who also was advantaged of being prime. Sullivan past his which is probably the real reason he didn't want to fight him. Drawing the color line was just convenient and legit excuse just like it was with Jack Johnson.

Facing lessor fighters for more money has always been the siren's song of boxing.

Cap wrote:A wicked slugger named John Barleycorn put Sullivan on his back more than once. And it wasn't just Jackson he avoided fighting. He backed out of a fight with Canadian light heavyweight George Godfrey at the last minute. He flat-out hated "n-----rs" as was common amongst white folk of his class in those days.

"John Barleycorn" is a euphemism for whiskey, and this refers to Sullivan's hard drinking ways.

Sullivan wouldnt have beaten Jackson in the late 1880s when Jackson came over to America. The peak Sullivan would have had all onto beat him, but by this stage Sully was almost a spent force, had life and death with Kilrain and drew with the much smaller Mitchell. Jackson was the best heavyweight in the world in the late 1880s.

This is a big question and several posters have pointed out the importance of the timing of any clash between these two. From 1889 Peter has to take it. But at their best a fasinating contest of styles. Jackson's career has not come under as much scrutiny as Sullivan's but on close examination he had most trouble with rough-and-tumble brawlers and John L was king of that type of fighting. Fallon, Lambert and most tellingly Goddard gave Jackson fits. I rate Jackson the better fighter on Legacy but head-to-head at peak, I think a lighting fast, rough Sullivan takes him out.

iceman21287 wrote:I've always considered The Black Prince to be the greatest fighter of his era - including Sullivan and Corbett.

you got that right...The great Peter Jackson was the best fighter of his time...The 1880s

I wouldnt call Sullivan a complete racist, as he did attempt to fight George Godfrey at least on two occasions, but the fights never took off. Throw in his fight/exhibitions with Kiwi Herbert Slade, it kind of throws it all to the wind, as Slade was a man of dark complextion as well. Early in his career he was supposed to have fought a black man as well, but the man never showed up.

But for all intents and purposes, yes, Sullivan ducked Jackson, but did take on Corbett who fought Jackson.

HomicideHenry wrote:I wouldnt call Sullivan a complete racist, as he did attempt to fight George Godfrey at least on two occasions, but the fights never took off. Throw in his fight/exhibitions with Kiwi Herbert Slade, it kind of throws it all to the wind, as Slade was a man of dark complextion as well. Early in his career he was supposed to have fought a black man as well, but the man never showed up.

But for all intents and purposes, yes, Sullivan ducked Jackson, but did take on Corbett who fought Jackson.

So, you'd call Sullivan an . . . incomplete racist?

Herbert Slade was a Maori, whose ancestors migrated from Eastern Polynesia to New Zealand between AD 800 and 1300. Slade was not an African-American.

Jackson was the Joe Louis of his day in terms of idol worship by blacks. Particularly after he dismantled George Godfrey, who held the distinction of the man Sullivan drew the color line to avoid before Jackson came on the scene. It's also why Jackson the professional athlete disappeared into history. Anyway Sullivan is lucky he never fought Jackson because now the few people who have heard of either of them can pretend Sullivan would have beaten him. To me it's clear Jackson would have taken him apart. Sullivan would have a chance but he'd have to be in perfect fighting shape for it, and may still take a beating. It seems like something trivial now but that one fight & Jackson acceding to the title would have drastically changed history. Boxing history anyway.

donnellon wrote:This is a big question and several posters have pointed out the importance of the timing of any clash between these two. From 1889 Peter has to take it. But at their best a fasinating contest of styles. Jackson's career has not come under as much scrutiny as Sullivan's but on close examination he had most trouble with rough-and-tumble brawlers and John L was king of that type of fighting. Fallon, Lambert and most tellingly Goddard gave Jackson fits. I rate Jackson the better fighter on Legacy but head-to-head at peak, I think a lighting fast, rough Sullivan takes him out.

Agreed.