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

Title claims under Queensbury rules were not even accepted as being leitimate title claims for much of Sullivan's career, and it was not inevitable that Queensbury rules would gain greater legal acceptance than bareknuckle boxing.

Having a dominant champion, who pushed the Queensbury model and courted leagal acceptance of the sport at this critical time, might have been crucial to bringing boxing under the umbarella of leagality.

There are actualy a lot of ways that things could have turned out. What if the dominant fighter of the era had been a bareknuckle specialist such as Killrain who chose to fight under the old ruleset illegaly?

 

I am not disputing your argument, just the depth of quality of those he dominated.

 

He didn't have that many bareknuckle fights during his prime, the Kilrain and second Mitchell bouts being his most famous. I think only 3. He had many, many more fights than those listed on his usually accepted record of 38-1.

 

Again, it wasn't him pushing it so much as it being easier to accept under the guise of "a set of rules" in an exhibition match. I mean if Sullivan was an ambassador for the sport of boxing, please point me to that book. Seriously

As for your question - Rules being implemented were inevitable, thats my point here. Do you really think we might still have bareknuckle boxing in 2012 right now otherwise? I sure as hell don't. It came down to $$$ - and it was easier to get matches with rules plain and simple so it was inevitable - its prizefighting (I have to remind boxing fans of that word daily I swear).

 

Still there has to be a divide. Otherwise where is the 20 year roman or greek champ on peoples lists? I think it was Cleitomacheus

My personal preferance for lists is to divide either pre/post ww2 or in the 20s with the implementation of 15 round fights and legalized boxing in most states. Just totally different beasts altogether to mesh the real old eras in with the current. To each their own though

 

You have a good book to recommend?

 

Our distinguished poster, Adam Pollack, put out a hell of a book. I also liked John L. Sullivan and His America by Michael Isenberg.

And hey, I don't have a definitive answer on the topic. Given the right context, and really not too much context, I could include him in my top ten.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for the book reference.

Another poster said he had many more fights than 39, any idea what the number was?

 

Pollock has a long, long list in the back of his book. I have no idea what the number is there. Sullivan toured a lot and performed "exhibitions" which were often just rouses to avoid the cops and actual bouts. Sources like Boxrec do not include his LPR rules fights.

 

Good things have never been said about a retiring fighter? lol - thats exactly when they are. If he was such a great advocate then why not have all his matches under the rules - including his most notable ones? Also, from my readings, Sullivan most definitely is not the advocate one would want for boxing as he was constantly getting into drunk ruckus's and escapades and street fights.

Probable boxing would have emerged with rules? Come on

 

I usually put Sullivan into my top-10 AT Hvys.

I mostly judge on how I think fighters would do if they'd come along together at various times, subject to the conditions of the times but developing in analogy to how they developed in their own times.

I think Sullivan ahd formidable natural ability; my main questions about him are whether he was the sort of guy who'd profit from the development of his sport, and also whether a lax training ethic would have caught up with him quicker in later and arguably more competitive eras.

 

No chance.

 

It's unfair that he isn't even considered, isn't it. You got me thinking he should crack a top 20, perhaps. It's hard to evaluate, and I'm generally bad with pre 20th century HWs and their proper ranking in history.