Jack Johnson .Vs. John L. Sullivan

Sullivan only defended under LPR when he was forced into it. He preferred to maximize his chances at landing a knockout, and LPR prevented that.

We don't really have enough footage of Sullivan to make a reliable prediction on this one, IMO. Either way, Sullivan's performance against Corbett tells us nothing, since he was way past his best even against Kilrain.

We don't really know how well Johnson adapts to LPR either. His style was probably primitive enough for LPR, but he never fought under those rules. So we are matching a guy who didn't like LPR and never appears on film in his prime against a guy who never fought LPR. We might make a better guess than blind monkeys throwing darts, but it's still in that ballpark.

 

And Sullivan looks like?lol

 

More similar to Johnson than either looked to Louis, I imagine. But who knows.

 

The only resemblance Sullivan had to Johnson was they both had 2 arms and legs.

 

Judging by the massive quantity of clear film we have of Sullivan in his prime, I think not.

 

More seriously, though, I doubt that's true. The tiny shreds of evidence we have of Sullivan paint the picture of a man who resembles Johnson more than either resembles Louis. Neither Sullivan nor Johnson look modern. At least to the tiny extent we can tell with Sullivan. Louis is different. He looks basically modern.

 

We have the fight reports which tell us how he fought and he did NOT stand back on the back foot waiting for his opponents to lead so he could counter them.He was fast out of he blocks quick into range ,and constantly looking to get his big right hand over.Does that sound in any way like Johnson to you?

 

The difference between Sullivan's aggression and Johnson's counterpunching is minor compared to the difference between their boxing fundamentals and Louis's boxing fundamentals.

To use another analogy, Jirov and Toney resembled each other more than either resembled Johnson. Again, this is because both of them were modern boxers, despite one being a swarmer and the other being a counterpuncher.

EDIT: Again, to the extent that we can even tell how Sullivan fought.

 

Lets agree to differ.

 

Ok.

 

Who today reminds you of Louis?

 

In the broad sense I'm referring to-- that they all use normal jabs, right hands, left hooks, footwork, stances, etc. -- Louis's style is extremely dominant right now. It doesn't even have serious challengers, unless you count Ingle fighters.

EDIT: If, on the other hand, you're asking for a deliberate, efficient boxer-puncher who creeps in range until the opponent is forced to exchange, and then blasts them with combinations, no, I can't think of any heavyweight who employs modern techniques with that approach.

 

So you are saying text book boxing is dominant?

What is an Ingle fighter? as in Brendan Ingle trained guys?

 

Textbook boxing is dominant, yes. Although many modern heavyweights are sloppy, they still rely on the textbook stuff for their base, by and large.

And yes, that Ingle.

 

I think saying text book boxing is dominant should go without saying as it's the base of every fighter, I wouldn't call it Joe Louis's style he himself was a text book fighter but what he did was his own work with those tools if that makes sense? Ricardo Lopez was about as close to the book as you can get would you say his style is dominant? who's :"style" is it? I am not meaning any of this rudely I hope I can get this across over text.

Okay, why do you say Ingle's fighters are dominant today? I am really not up to date on fighting lineages and who is trained by who today sorry.