Ken Norton v John L. Sullivan (75 rounds)

Norton would be on a different level to Sullivan imho

 

I like the approach of tacking on 50 more rounds as an apparent advantage to the older fighter when the odds that he'd make it past the first 10 are practically nil.

But I will say, raise a talent like Sullivan through the 1960's amateur/pro scene and you would have a formidable heavyweight who would give anyone a hard night, and yes, who could very likely take out a Norton.

 

I get the idea that Sullivan's power was probably enough to win him this one.

 

Norton would befuddle and batter Sullivan. I'd bet on it.

 

Based on what?

 

If fought in Sullivan era bareknuckle and rules he wins . If fought in modern era with gloves then Norton wins .

 

What is undeniable is that Sullivan was an outlier talent, the type that, given the proper environment, will succeed in any generation.

Was Norton really an outlier as a fighter (outside of begin yoked AF)?

 

This is a bit like asking what would win a fight between a lion, and a carnivorous dinosaur of about the same size.

We know exactly what one of the combatants is, but we are making a semi educated guess what the other combatant was.

Whatever prediction we make, could unravel based on one wrong assumption, and we have to make many assumptions.

My prediction is that the dinosaur f***s up the lion, but I am making a lot of educated guesses, about what teh dinosaur was.

 

I don’t think Norton has the movement or chin to survive against someone with the attributes of Sullivan; someone with reportedly great power, speed, timing, accuracy, shot selection.

Under LPR rules I think it’s no context in Sullivan’s favour, under gloved boxing match it’s harder to asses but everything about Sullivan spells disaster for Norton if he’s even 20% as good as people that saw him say he was

 

Except that in boxing you can hit somebody on the chin.

 

A fighter from another era could have every qualitative advantage over Sullivan, that a modern athlete has over Jim Thorpe, and they could still get knocked out.

I believe that Sullivan's era was weaker than the eras that came after it, and also some of the eras that came before it.

I also think that Sullivan was such an extreme outlier, that he could in theory have had success in much stronger eras.

I think that the global boxing talent pool probably peaked when Jim Thorpe was in his 40s.

 

The stuff I've read on Thorpe makes me think he would have succeeded in any era. You have to understand the ridiculously primitive conditions he competed in and how little he actually trained for athletics.

 

I feel like what proves Sullivan as an generational talent is how he was regularly being compared favourably with a far deeper talent pool in Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, Corbett by those who saw both, many experts and fighters alike maintaining that even an alcoholic shell of Sullivan beats them. People saw the worst version of John L. yet still thought he’d make mincemeat out of the other elite fighters from the proceeding era.

This, alongside lighter weighted fighters like Donovan and McAuliffe, who’s skill level is in far less doubt than the heavys imo and were still respected by a more ‘evolved’ era in the 10s-30s, yet still adamant about Sullivan’s skill till the day they passed.

 

Joe Choynski sparred with an elderly dilapidated Sullivan, and said that Sullivan was a fast as he was, and hit a lot harder.

The same Joe Choynski who Jack Johnson called the hardest hitter he ever faced.

Now if he was right, then Sullivan must have been a terrifying fighter during his prime.