Heavyweight Tourney:Rd 3:Wladimir Klitschko .Vs. John L. Sullivan

sullivan's head won't reach wlad's chin.
sullivan does not last more than 8 rounds to be generous with him.
no more than 6 to be realistic.

 

but yes , this is even more realistic.

and this too.

 

Wlad by early KO, too much of a size difference and Sullivans skills are primitive in comparison.

Also, like it or not but Wlad is the best in the world at this moment in time, whereas when Sullivan was 'World Champ', he was actually champion of white men in America.

 

John L. Sullivan by 1st round KO.

Wlad's going out on a stretcher, with the first bell still ringing in our ears.

John L. was just too much of a beast.

Look, it's like this :

1. his style was impetuous
2. his defense was impregnable
3. he was just ferocious.

Nuff said.

 

An '88 Tyson would leave Wlad in a crumpled heap in 1 round, but in terms of Sullivan-Klitschko I think it could go either way. Wlad would be the biggest man he had ever faced physically, right? And I think that Wlad has never faced anyone with a style like Sullivan. In any case, I don't think the fight goes past 6.

 

And yet nobody who has researched Sullivan is dismissing his chances.

People who called it for the Klitschko's against Corbett, Fitzsimmons and even Jeffries are picking Sullivan.

 

Would pick the Wlad of today to beat the JL of 1882.

If they came along at the same time, would pick Jawn to open up a major can of woop-ass.

 

No man living or dead could have beaten a prime John L.

I dont even rate Sullivan in my top 20 heavyweights of all-time, really because it would be unfair to mix him in with mere mortals. It's a worthless comparison.
John L. was NOT a great fighter like those others, he was just ferocious. It would be like ranking a Bengal Tiger against men.
Outside of the ring, John L. might have been a man, a great man. But inside the ring he was something otherworldly, a demon perhaps, an animal surely.
I want people to understand this.

His style was impetuous, if you could even call it a "style". And his defense was impregnable, but to call it a "defense" makes it sound too mortal, too refined, feminine even. There aren't really words to describe him, he was the one and only great John L., and, for want of a better expression, he was just ferocious.

The era he fought in was full of men hardened through hardship and chaos, and the men he fought were the roughest and toughest, and demi-gods and diablos in their own right.
And John L. was the most godly and the most diabolical of all beings, he stood alone in that time.
So imagine what he'd do against a mere mortal and vulnerable fighter of this era, like Wlad Klitschko.

As the great Reg Gutteridge once said, "It was about as one-sided as a lynching", and Sullivan preying on Wlad Klitschko would, quite literally, be as bad as a lynching.

I would campaign against the fight being made, and pray for Wladimir Klitschko, and pray for Sullivan's dark soul too. This mismatch would destroy any justification for the continuation of boxing.

Sullivan KO1 Klitschko.

 

Wlad KO1 within 60seconds, complete miss match in every sense

 

So when did Wlad stop anybody in the first round?

 

As much as I love the idea of John L being this unbelievable pugilist with an unfathomable style with the punch of Joe Louis, I say he walks forward and eats the jab for a while, tries to throw a punch and gets jabbed again. A more fearsome fighter would decimate John L then, a Tyson or Foreman but Wlad is too cautious. Like Ray Austin, Sullivan lasts into round two. I'd LOVE a time machine to be able to get John L to fight Jerry Quarry, or Ron Lyle, or better still someone like Monte Barrett. Just to get a gauge of how well he couldve fared against the greats. Then put him in with Ali :rofl if he survived them, which I doubt he would. Would love it if he were awesome though, fascinating fighter.

 

I'll just agree with this.

 

That is always the bottom line.

Reconstructing Sullivan is a bit like reconstructing a Dinosaur from its skeleton.

I have looked at the Dinosaur skeleton and deduced that it bellonged to a T rex but that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

Teeto:

Janitor, it is indeed open to interpretation. On John L, even if I discount him, I'm glad to recount him (does that even make sense) what I mean is that I'm a fan, even if I don't rate his chances against Burns or Sharkey, let alone Louis, Holmes, Lewis, Liston. Still think he wouldn't give a **** and would attempt to beat them senseless! Just that I don't feel he'd have that much success attempting it. I just believe that boxing got more and more refined until we got to the 30's. Tunney's era was the era of the innovators IMO, and from Louis onwards people have just refining it, changing it, whatever. Skill levels really peaked from then onwards and I'm in the firm belief that the class of 30-85 is as about as close to the best it will ever be. There are of course exceptions, bit I think there are a skant few before (Greb, Tunney, Dempsey, Loughran etc) and after (Pea, Lewis, Tyson, well there are quite a few here but I believe the best practitioners of the sport came around Charles, Robinson, Armstrong, Ross,Burley years across the board at all weights, continuing onto Ali and ending, at large around the end of Haglers prime) that I feel could REALLY compete in the time of regular fights of 8, 10, 12 and 15 rounds fighting the best competition the sport has ever offered.