Would anyone include John L Sullivan in their Top Ten HW?

achievement wise I have him in my second tier (louis is top tier on his own).

his resume lets him down quite a bit cos I don't know enough about his opposition. altogether I place him in the 16-20 tier. absolutely an atg. possibly top 10 depending on criteria.

 

Depending on your criteria, the case can certainly be made.

I think that he is difficult to compare to subsequent champions, even relative to somebody like Jeffries.

 

I agree. Jeffries has the guys like Corbett, Fitz and Sharkey who might not be well regarded in modern h2h matchups but they were absolutely known to be the top men of the day. All 3 HOF and 2 of them former champs. the resume is easily highlightable with quality names.

Sullivan's resume is mysterious and I'm not even sure I could compare it wiht someone like Holmes or Wlad in terms of quality.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

and that's why achievement wise you could argue him over anyone bar Louis imo. conversely it's also why it's tough crediting his resume with the same acclaim.

 

I think you are correct.

EVen if you dispute the quality of every single one of his challengers, and put them consider them to be at best club fighters, his KO record stands up to the KO record of any great fighter, including Tyson, Foreman and Co. He really must have been something special.

Like most, it is difficult to see how his opponents could possibly be considered to be from an era as strong as the current one, yet (like with virtually every era although in 20 years it is hard to believe that it will happen), most people of the time considered his era to have harder trainers and tougher fighters than even the 1900 and certainly much better than the Johnson era and beyond. Still, i really think it is only fair to dispute quality of era from making considerations since no one really has any idea.

Also, if you look at how he performed when past prime, which starts probably at Kilrain, where he produced an astonishing performance or after he broke his arm where he always found a way to hold the title. Or even Corbett when despite the fact that he was outgunned by a younger all time great his performance really does stand on par and even above many of his fellow all time great fighters performance in similar circumstances, for example:

Ali v HOlmes, Jeffries v JOhnson, Louis v Marciano, Tyson v Lewis, Dempsey v Tunney.

I think that realistically he should be placed in the same tier as these guys. He doesnt quite have the longivety of some, but he was untouchable like Marciano, Jeffries , Tyson and Dempsey. I think he probably ranks alongside these guys,in their tier but would have no problem with any higher placing. YOu could concievably argue for him to be as high as number one, even though I wouldnt usually. To be fair, it is not totally impossible that the tier i argued for could be placed above the Louis, Ali tier or at least with them.

 

I hate to tell you, but Sullivan didn't "transform" or "fundamentally change" the sport himself, he just happened to be there.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Perhaps because the only way to do it was under Queensbury rules since bareknuckle was illegal? Of course boxing itself was still illegal most everywhere, but under a new set of rules it wasn't as "animalistic" and was easily accepted hence why it was a gradual transition no matter who would have held the title - it was inevitable

 

I give him kudos for giving the sport both a veneer of respectability, and great popularity.but he does not get anywhere near my top 10.

 

lol, read what i put above. sullivan didnt "save" anything - and thats not a knock on him, its just the truth. you just esentially said it yourself also

 

Its hard to include him simply because with what you are claiming is including bareknuckle fighters in boxing - which is a different sport