Sullivan in the inter-period between Tunney and Louis - can he win the title?

It is very hard to say with John L. Sullivan. If I wanted to wing it anyway, I would say he likely does not win the Lineal Title during that time frame, but he is a solid contender. If you put him in after James J Jeffries retires, then I see him winning the belt and holding it until Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey take it from him.

 

I would pick him over Louis and Tunney both.

 

No. He doesn't come to close to winning a single fight at the top level from this era.

 

No Sharkey boxes his ears off.Schmeling counters him to death,Baer more than matches his power and chin,He has chances with Primo,thats' it.

 

How could you even guess at that?

 

It depends what rules your fighting. Bare knuckle rules he’s got a fair chance. 1930s rules he’d be beaten by all of them. (You left out Braddock).

 

The problem is this.

We have extensive footage of all of the champions between Tunney and Louis, but we only have verbal descriptions to go with when understanding Sullivan.

How would you conclude that Sullivan either would or wouldn't beat them from a verbal description?

That then leaves us trying to speculate how good the fighters that Sullivan beat were, relative to the fighters of the 30s, and not reaching any very definite conclusions.

 

My feelings about Sullivan remain as always .. a monster sociological figure in American sports history, a phenomenal physical talent for his very short prime and a transitional figure between sports. I say he lacked the learning curve and training to compete as a championship caliber M of Q fighter. Maybe he beats Carnera if a certain type of ref allows a certain type of fight … maybe he outslugs a very hittable, raw Baer but Sullivan never fought real , heavyweight M of Q skilled fighters … now if he were trained for years in that sport with his natural ability is a whole other question ….

 

Mel, you’re in your early to mid 20s, right? Man, I’ve seriously got to commend you for your interest and investment in the old timers - and for sparking a good number of discussions re the old masters.

 

I don’t understand your line of reasoning which you’ve raised before.

It seems to almost stay “Why are we even bothering to talk about it?”

It’s always about speculation, particularly the further we dive back on the old timers for which we only have written descriptions - is it the opinions against Sullivan’s viability that bother you?

If there isn’t evidence of an extraordinary or standout attribute, then I think it stands to reason not to assume it, thereby leaning toward the greater likelihood.

 

I am not saying that we shouldn't bother about it, I am saying that there are limitations to how reliable out conclusions can be.

As for evidence of a standout attribute in Sullivan, then if you accept eyewitness descriptions, then there is more evidence than you can find room to put it.

The question you must grapple with, is whether you are prepared to weight that evidence against the film based evidence.