BoxRec

To me these are the two toughest fighters to rank.

To me Sullivan beat no one of note other than Kilrain, but yet I seen several accounts he had 200+ Knockouts. I find him having trouble with Chaley Mitchell as a huge red flag in his ability.

James Corbett had very few fights fought almost none of the newer crop of fighters other than Sharkey & Mccoy. Sharkey he didn't do well at all & the Mccoy fight I'm Convinced was "fake"just as the newspapers claimed at the time. The newspapers were pretty keen at noticing fake fights as they normally had the same guys covering dozen & dozens of fights in the period they knew "an issue" when they saw it. PLUS Mccoy's wife claimed he faked because of financial trouble which really lends credence to this fact. So Corbett didn't really accomplish much vs the new crop of fighters making his place in history very hard to judge.

But Yet Corbett knocked down A very prime Fitz & Carved up Jeffries face in losing efforts. I also suspect Corbett really lacked a knockout punch which would be a real issue facing other opponent's.

I'm just wondering taking their head to head battle somewhat out of the equation whom should rank higher...

Would be easier if we had some stuff to actually watch.

As far as "Fame" or 'boxing skills" ?

Sullivan was the champion for far longer than Corbett. He was 34 when he lost to Corbett and hadn't had a competitive fight for a few years. He didn't live a lifestyle that was going to allow him to be a great fighter into his 30s. As far as historical significance and cultural impact goes, it is no contest, Sullivan was the biggest sports star in the world. John L is a major reason why boxing became what it was/is, he pushed for gloves and for shorter, more entertaining fights. IIRC

Both fought a lot of nobodies, but boxing at the time was far different to what it is now. Whether he was the best boxer in the world for the 10 years he was champion, I am sure is up for debate but being a champion for 10 years is one hell of a accomplishment, regardless of the era.

Caractacus wrote: ↑26 Feb 2024, 16:46 As far as "Fame" or 'boxing skills" ?

I'm talking purely skill

John L sullivan Only faced 1 of the three top heavy's in 1887 (Joe McAuliffe, Patsy cardiff, pat Killen). To me he faced the clear worse of the 3 in Patsy Cardiff and by newspaper reports clearly wasn't head & shoulders better than his man, He certainly proved he was capapble of beating all of them but he was still in prime at this stage and managed a draw.

Corbett faced a much tougher level although most of his best efforts came in losing event's. But a win over Choynski is better than anything Sullivan accomplished.

Projecting what Sullivan was capable is rather difficult based on his D competion level. Even throwing out his "past his prime effort" He was certainly capable when he fought Cardiff & seemed to be so disheartened at his effort he just quit.

Corbett hung with Jeffries a long time & I'm not sure a prime Sullivan could of done that...but maybe he could. The difference of Jeffries from a jake Kilrain is about the grand canyon, so I'm a bit perplexed How sullivan should rank higher in skill.

But Sullivan had two of the best quality's present in early boxers durable & Power, I just don't like assuming his skill is far beyond what was "presented to us" but maybe it was...I know alot of early boxers but these guy's I'm having trouble with projecting thier skill level. I can list off numerous reason's I doubt Corbett but I'd like someone less jaded than myself to establish whom had better skill.

Almost every one of Corbett's fights were quirky at least early something bizzare happened to skew the results. Such as the Choysnski fight, but he won, so I don't mean to be too harsh. I would have much better idea if i read books on them & didn't rely exculsively on Newspaper reports.