Heavyweight Ratings by decade. Part 1 (1880-1909)

[mattdonnellon]

I am in the process of rating the top 200 Heavyweights of alltime, a duunting task. The medhodology I am applying is to rate the top 20 for each decade, a total of 260 boxers and then use this template to do up the 200.
I intend to post my ratings for the decades in four parts as the total would be too big a post for forum readers to absorb in a short span of time and offer their criticisms and opinions.
NB A fighter is rated in only one decade, the one in which IMO he did his best work. Sometimes this can be arbitary, think Jeffries, Losis, Doughlas for example but in the final shake-up it wont matter.
NB2! While I have rated the men by decade I'm rating them on them on their career body of work.
The main criteria is career accomplishments, not potential or peak performance. Head to head comes into play only when I find it hard to split two fighters and I'm sure the biggest factor is my own biases and lack of knowledge.
1880-89
1 jackson
2 sullivan
2 kilrain
4 godfrey
5 ed smith
6 mcauliffe
7 killeen
8 ashton
9 lannon
10 cardiff
11 mitchell
12 lees
13 farnan
14 cc smith
15 burke
16 wilson
17 cleary
18 hadley
19 conley
20 mccaffrey

1890-99
1 jeffries
2 fitz
2 corbett
4 maher
5 sharkey
6 mccoy
7 goddard
8 slavin
9 choynski
10 childs
11 armstrong
12 kennedy
13 griffin
14 hall
15 klondike
16 o'donnell
17 dunkhorst
18 creedon
19 craig
20 butler

1900-09
1 johnson
2 jeanette
2 martin
4 burns
5 hart
6 ruhlin
7 o'brien
8 root
9 ferguson
10 gardner
11 j.flynn
12 kaufman
13 schreck
14 ross
15 j.t.sullivan
16 barry
17 munroe
18 lang
19 stewart
20 carter

1880-.sullivan16wilsono'donnellbarry17clearydunkhorstmunroe18hadleycreedonlang19conleycraigstewart20mccaf freybutlercarter

[amhlilhaus]

critics abound, and I'm sure you put much thought and effort into your work, but you lose tremendous credibility by placing peter jackson ahead of john l. sullivan

to wit, john l. sullivan defeated in actual fights or was clearly better in exhibitions (sometimes real fights and sometimes not, but I include exhibition wins which where there was clear superiority) george rooke, joe goss (the bareknuckle champion at the time in an exhibition) , mike donovon, john donaldson, james dalton, john flood, paddy ryan (bareknuckle champion) jimmy ellitott (former title claimant) , steve taylor, tug wilson, alf greenfield, charley mitchell (both gloves and bareknuckle, arguably no. 2 for this decade), herbert slade, jack burke (fought mitchell razor close several times), dominck mccaffery, and jake kilrain in the last bareknuckle title fight. I haven't even included the guys who challenged sullivan on his last four rounds with me offer, which no one ever did except wilson who did so by illegal tactis and should have been dq'd, which george robinson was dq'd for the same thing, because some of those guys weren't trained fighters.

jackson in the 1880's defeated mick dooley, tom lees, george godfrey (top american black), joe mcaufle, patsy cardiff, frank slavin and his famous draw with corbett.

Sullivan drew the color line, his reputation is soiled by it, but it wasn't because he couldn't beat those guys, in the mid 1880's he would have EASILY beaten godfrey, cac smith or any of the others, and he still would have beaten them in the later 1880's just not quite as easily. jackson's prime was 1889 or so until 1893, just as sullivan's will to fight and physical debauchery was catching up to him, indeed the story of his getting ready for the kilrain fight in 1888 was a herculean task for him, and jackson was probably much better than kilrain at the time. placing one guy over another because of them never fighting is a poor way of judging fighters, after all lennox lewis never faced john ruiz or chris byrd, and we know who was better there.

[mattdonnellon]

Goss was an old man as was Elliott, Ryan never won a gloved fight worth a mention.

[mattdonnellon]

Greenfield was but an average middle, Slade was useless and just a product of a PR campaign.tug Wilson was, as you alluded to yourself, another joke. Taylor and Flood were good local fighters, nothing more.Dalton was an in an out journeyman. Mccaffrey and Mitchell were reasonable but their best effords were against John L and each other. The Burke win was also reasonable but he like Mitchell was but a middleweight in reality. Rooke was a middle too but not as good.Donaldson was a second-rater and while the win over Kilrain was excellent, it was with bare-knuckles.
As I pointed out I am rating the fighters on their career performances and I think that draws with Corbettand Goddard, wins over Godfrey, Slavin, Denver Ed Smith, McAuliffe and Cardiff are all better than any gloved performances of the great John L whom I admire greatly. I used tp rate hin above Jackson and indeed head to head at their best he might well take it but I cannot see anything in his record to put him above Jackson.

[amhlilhaus]

debate is wonderful, but peter jackson was not better than john l. sullivan, sullivan would have beaten all the people jackson did in his prime, and would have done so in a shorter time.