Either rank John L Sullivan in your top 5, or leave him off your list altogether.

Lets look at his career statistics:

Where does his longevity rank among the lineal heavyweight champions (years, months, days).

• Joe Louis 11, 8, 8
• John L Sullivan 10, 7, 0
• Larry Holmes7, 3, 12
• Jack Dempsey 7, 2, 19
• Jack Johnson 6, 3, 10

In all he was involved in 33 fights where his title was on the line. Admittedly a lot of these were like the Louis Davies fight i.e. exhibitions where the title could theoretically change hands.

• John L Sullivan 33
• Joe Louis 26
• Muhammad Ali 22
• Larry Holmes 20
• Tommy Burns 11

His dominance is off the scale. Everybody he fought seems to have either fought to survive, or got destroyed really quickly. He sometimes made substantial cash wagers on his ability to knock out top contenders of the day inside four rounds.

In terms of thoroughness he pretty much fought every decent contender from North America or Europe, though he failed to fight the top names from Australia. He failed to fight many of the top fighters who were around at the end of his career such as Jackson, Slavin and Goddard, but he pretty much met everybody before he fought Jake Killrain.

Ultimately we don’t really know how good he was or how good his opponents were. More precisely we don’t know the former because we don’t know the latter, but in terms of results relative to your era he is right up there.

I think the smart thing is either to grant him a very high ranking, or leave him off your list because you just don’t know.

 

Good info, really :good

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I havent got the statistics handy, but he would obliterate everybody in terms of KOs withimn the first 4 rounds.

And regarding the strength of his era, it is also worth noting that while most people think it is weak (myself probably included) due to lack of info, those who witnessed his era with the next era mostly considered it a golden age where they trained harder, and fought in tougher conditions with less pampering. The testimonies from those who saw him fight also had him up there.

It is quite possible that the above quote Rank him top 4 or not at all could be extended. The only way he is not top 4(well possibly 10 might be more accurate as there have been plenty of ATG fighters) is if you are very big on the evolution and olympic games running theory but this would mean, to be consistent you would also not be able to rate Sugar Ray Robinson and probably Muhammed Ali (i dont see any times from the 60s stacking up) among others.

 

Lists don’t go in chronological order, but 1950 – 2000, often ends up looking weak next to 1900 – 1950.

1900 -1950 gives you Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford and Harry Greb

1930-2013 would be hard put to match that!

 

I like John L and think his power, speed, punch, stamina and strenght would make him a handful for almost anybody.
He did however miss out on Godfrey, Killeen, McAuliffe as well as the more documented Jackson, Slavin and Goddard at the end of his career, Best wins are McCaffrey, Mitchell, Cardiff-draw-Burke and Kilrain (prize ring)- thin eneough I think.
The problem is that none of the guys he beat boxed the next wave of good fighters, and IMO the best fighters of 1890-1900 were among the best of the early decades.

 

I fully endorse this most excellent post.

In reference to Goddard, they did meet after the Corbett bout. It sounds, from the one newsclip i found, like Sully held his own.

 

How do you rate the likes of:
Ryan, Goss, Donaldson, Flood,Slade, Taylor, Dalton etc who are all much closer to prime wins yet rarely discussed or considered due to lack of information.

 

i just this minute uploaded a documentary with a feature on john l sullivan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLyoKmW4Ec

check it out. :good

 

Can I rank him at number 6 ?

 

Legend.

Deserves to be ranked near Jeffries.

 

This would be acceptable.

 

Great OP. Sums up feelings I haven't been able to convey.

I'll leave him off.

 

He thrived in the four-round fights.
Kind of like Audley Harrison.

 

He adapted to them, but you have to wonder if he might have been served better by a longer distance.

Given fifteen rounds, he would have been almost ubeatable for the kind of fighters available at the time.

They would be able to run but not hide.