John L v Sailor Tom???

Bad style match-up for Tom, Coming forward aggressively against the fast powerful fighter that John L was could only end one way-Sharkey ko'ed inside maybe three.

 

No.

John L would fashion the top of his skull into a cornflake bowl.

 

which brings us nicely to the question, just how effective would a 25 year old Sullivan be in the 1890's-1900's? He'd surely beat Hart and Burns? What about McVea or Langford? Or how about a tear-up with Maher or Fitz? I think he wins most of them, and the bigges Jeff or Johnson. Can't see him beat Jack but Jeffries-that's an intriguing match up.

 

Prime Sullivan would have beaten the guys that Jeffries and Johnson beat more impressively.

The only thing to argue, is whether he could have beaten Jeff and Jon!

 

Not enough footage to say.

If we are to believe what we read about John l there are hey few who would be favoured over him but I'm not a fan of second hand info.

 

Tom I think would be too easilt hit.

As for Sullivan vs the Corbett/Jackson to Johnson/Langford/McVey/Jeanette crowd, I think he does better if he comes along in their time and developes in analogy to how he developed in his own time, rather than time machined right out of the 1880's.
Supposing he came along in their time: 1) he shouldn't loose to Corbett or Jackson, but might not win either; 2) would favor him over Fitzsimmons and Langford, but they are live underdogs; 3) don't know how it would turn out against Jeffries and Johnson; 4) I'd favor Sullivan over the other heavies of those periods.
Sullivan straight out of the 1880's, I'd favor Jeffries and Johnson, and make Langford and Fitzsimmons even money.
This is assuming, in each scenario, Jawn is at his best. Sometimes Sullivan's preperation was a bit slap-dash, though.

 

I don't know if Sullivan would have beaten Jeffriues or Johnson, but I think he would have beaten all their key opponents, and probably more quickly than they did.

 

I think you guys are selling Sharkey way short here. Sullivan was no less easy to hit and was primarily a right handed killer. Sharkey was stronger and could knock you stiff with either hand. He was an iron man. His chin was concrete. When in his prime he took the best of Jeffries and took frightful poundings from Fitz and Choynski and kept coming back for more. I don't see Sully as having so much more firepower than those guys.

Plus, could he take what Sharkey could dish out?? That's an important question.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Anybody stupid enough to trade with Sullivan, ended up on their back very quickly.

 

Maybe for the old London Prizering style. Put him in a Queensberry fight and we may see something different :smoke. If Sharkey could hit Corbett and Kid McCoy, he could hit Sullivan. Easily.

One look at them both pretty much reveals who was the stronger man. Sharkey is a much more impressive physical specimen. He was considered a freak. A squat Hercules. His feats of brute strength were legendary.

Jeffries told Robert Edgren that "Tom was the hardest man to fight because he was quick and no amount of punishment could halt his repeated charges. He was short and he rushed so fast, he made a bad target."

 

Sullivan was a Tysononish fighter, fast brutal, and powerful. way before his time, no slugger. He had to adapt to London prize ring to become the MAN, a bit like the current MMA CHAMP, if there is such a person, winning the undisputed title, and holding it for 10 years.
He was biggest, fastest, most powerful, clever heavyweight and hit really, really hard. Sharkey was good no doubt, but built a lot on the Jefries fights. Fitz Ko'd him in fairness, Maher was getting the better of him intrheir slugfest, Ruhlim got his measure. John L was really the BIZ I THINK.