John L Sullivan Vs "Sailor" Tom Sharkey

Tyson's played that card quite a few times if memory serves.

 

He was a hard fast living man with a strong appetite for drink.....if he had followed Fitzimmons ideas on diet ad health he would have lived much longer.....ironically Johnny Duplooy died young from obesity related illness as well when he quit boxing.....in Sullivans day not as much thought was given to the negative effects of the good life remember a plump woman was considered healthy

 

I read it was a tame exhibition in which neither exerted himself.

 

I'm not sure Sharkey was slower than Sullivan,he was regularly described as being very fast on his feet. The edge in power goes to John L imo.

 

meet.lol

 

While that is true, defensive skills were not developed much in Sullivan's time; and power is the last thing to go.

Sullivan was under 30 for many of these 1880's fight where his opponent went the distance. The competition I think was also a bit better in the mid-1880's for Sullivan.

How would it go? Sharkey has a proven chin and established power.

I'm not sure if Sullivan ever took a punch from anyone who hit has hard as Sharkey did. How he would react is guess.

So you have a legend with no film who said he did not have the skills to compete with the next generation of fighters after him, with a signature win being Charlie Mitchell VS. Sharkey, who got the better of Corbett, a man who made Sullivan look bad. Sharkey Ko'd better men than Sullivan meet such as Choynski and McCoy in addition to giving Jeffries a man Sullivan said would have " put it to him " perhaps his toughest fight.

Does that answer your question? Sharkey was quick on his feet, dirty, durable, with plenty of stamina to fight past 20 rounds. He has been compared to Marciano.

 

Had you met me, you would not be laughing. Get a life captain spell check; you make you share of errors too.

 

I am curious to know who you think that Sullivan failed to put away, that Sharkey might have done better against.

I think that it would be a rash man who bet something that he could not afford to lose, on Sharkey beating the best contenders from another era, never mind putting them away.

I can certainly see no grounds for saying that Sharkey had a better chin.

Sharkey was stopped multiple times, while Sullivan was only ever stopped once, in his last title fight against Corbett.

Sharkey probably did meet better competition, but lets not forget that he lost to the best of them.

 

Had you honounred your bold challenge to meet me for a "decider" this would have been sorted long ago.but alas your rectum fell out and you came up with lame excuses."Who wants trouble at an airport"? Well actually I did .
One of my son in laws is security at Heathrow.We could have sorted this very quickly.

Bottom line you bottled it, and against an OAP

ps I'm 70 this year and I will be in Havana on the 3rd of April,not too far from you .
If you want to have it done ,pm me and I'll give you my hotel and address.

 

At least Jack Johnson had the sense not to go into the cellar with Jim Jeffries.

You are officially less sensible than Jack Johnson!

 

Bare Knuckle guys were part wrestlers and part boxers. In Sullivan's time the concept of using the jab to set something up, lateral mobility and such just wasn't part of the game. Corbett revolutionized things.

In Sullivan's time was back and forth like fencing with rushes, according to what I read with Wrestling mix in. A round ended when a guy hit the floor. So if you need a break, just throw someone or take fall yourself.

I have read boxing books from the early 1900's, such as Fitzsimmons, and the concepts of skill are there. Is there such a book with illustrations from Sullivan's time to judge? That I think would shed light on the topic.

Bare-knuckle guys could not afford to land many headshots, so the concept of defense to avoid them I think would have been undeveloped at the time. Sullivan himself said he preferred gloves. Adam Pollack, author of the In the Ring with John L Sullivan, used to post here, and he said boxing back then was very different.

Was Sullivan cruder than those whose came later? I'm going to answer this differently. Yes, I think he was cruder than most fighters in the early 1900's, however being crude is one thing, if you're athletic enough, and hit hard, the technique won't define you.

Tom Sharkey was curde, with power and speed. Some say Rocky Marciano was crude, but he had a style that worked for him. Ali was very unorthodox. So in a way under his rule set, I think Sullivan was much the same.

 

Corbett revolutionized nothing.

He was a self publicist, who systematically rewrote history in his favor.

Stylistically, he was a technical dead end that went nowhere, just like Roy Jones.

The key components of glove boxing were in place, long before his time.

The modern boxer owes a lot more to Larry Folley, an Peter Jackson, than they do to Corbett!