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

For me Sullivan is easy top-15, probably top-10, maybe top-5. My caveats are he seems a bit of a force of nature, I wonder how he'd do against other greats in eras were Queensbury boxing techniques were more developed. Also, though Sullivan was a force for quite some time, I think his prime was actually rather short, mid '81- mid'83; he often sounds a bit out of shape after that.
Also ... I could be wrong, here, but I just have a hard time seeing Sullivan beating Ali. Not saying I'd favor them, but I think Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis and Marciano would have had their chance against Ali; and I think, if Ali had come along in Jeffries day and met him, 1903-1905, in a 25 round match, Jeffries would have a chance. Sullivan, I don't really see it happening.

 

I leave him off :verysad

 

he's my fourth favourite sullivan

 

Ed, Gilbert, Margaret?

 

Why would he be better served by fights longer than the four rounds. He knocked everyone out inside the four rounds. Do you think it would have mattered if most of his fights were scheduled for 4 or 40 rounds?

 

Yes. This how I see it. In addition Sullivan was not an active champion and had to settle for a few six round title fights.

 

Remember his reign is unfair because he spent nearly 4 years in retirement. Shame so little is known about his opposition.

 

Considering the fact the transition from the London Prize Rules to the Marquess of Queensbury was a very gradual one, the notion of a weakened era doesn't float.

Sure, there were more disputes over the use of spiked shoes, round length and glove size, but the science itself was finely developed. Various prize fighters were thought to be more adept with the gloves on which shows that the chronology of evolution has more in common with inflation rates than sprinting times.

Sullivan was more closely connected (the consensus will eventually take heed) with minute rests and ten counts. The loss to Corbett had far more to do with his condition (allegedly wheezing after a few charges) than the opponents abilities.

Factor in both the longevity and dominance of his reign and it's not unreasonable to throw him into the mix.

If we're to make shortcuts for fighters like Harry Greb then we should at least be prepared to connect what dots there are. John would approve.

 

What shortcuts does Greb receive?

 

The fact there is no film of him; for many that is a deal breaker, but many are happy to do the equation minus this vital factor, myself included.

Admittedly, with Sullivan we have less to work with, but a vague estimation is better than turning a blind eye.

It's not in our nature to let things recede into an historical abyss, and legends deserve better.

Of course, as it stands, Sullivan's heavyweight repute can only improve.

 

The difference here is we know that Greb was atleast in the class of walker and tunney, wherever that may be. So we have second hand information we can process ourselves.

With Sullivan all we really have is people of the time discussing how he compares on a skill level with those that followed. I feel comfortable ranking him in the class of Jeffries. Who again we have limited to no footage of so have to rely on comparisons and I feel comfortable ranking him in the class of Johnson.

I rank entirely on h2h these days. So when ranking Sullivan I do with him very closely to Jeffries and Johnson. It ain't ideal but it is something I can live with.

I'd prefer to watch him myself but what can we do eh?

 

There is plenty of film on top fighters that Greb beat. There is only film of Corbett for Sullivan. But Sullivan wasn't competive with Corbett.

 

I don't know where to rank John L...How could anyone rate him sccurately today.
But in the early 1940s in a Ring magazine which unfortunately was kod by hurricane Sandy 6 months ago, an interesting article was written pertaining to Sullivan. It was written by a DH Phillips, the father in-law of Nat Fleischer, who was in his late 70s
at the time and a boxing writer who saw Sullivan throughout his career...He ardently claimed John L Sullivan, at his best and sober, was better than Joe Louis, then the reigning champion, and explained why...I recall to this day that Phillips described Sullivan as "being built like a top", with great speed and strength...Phillips saw them all from Sullivan to Joe Louis, so maybe he wasn't just awhistling Dixie...For what it's worth.
P.S. I have always wondered how teak tough fat, old blimpy Sullivan was to last 21 rounds of battering when he lost his title to a young prime Corbett...And they were 3 minute rounds. WOW...

 

Personally I just leave him off altogether, not because I don't rate him (as much as I'm able to, give the relative lack of info) but I'm not comfortable ranking fighters I cannot see on film. List him with an asterisk if you must, but for me it's easier to just leave him off the ranking, which is a bit of a shame, but that's how it goes.

 

He gets ranked high for his historical impact, he made transaction to glove era. Was great bare knuckle fighter, and good with gloves in his era. I don;t think he beats most heavies who came after 1920's, but he made sport big in America.