john l. sullivan vs prime bowe...

SO! now since a 35 year old, poorly trained, Larry Holmes dropped a nod to a solid 200 pound Mike Spinks in 1985, that means Holmes was not up to par or a great fighter?

And so, since Larry Holmes was reamed by 2 of the 3 judges in Vegas for the '86 rematch, that too must mean Holmes was never all that great??

C'MON!

MR.BILL:hat:fire

 

So completely offbase and irrelevant that you have me confusidated.

 

Barenuckle and drunk, Sullivan make Bowe throw his belt in the trash

 

If Sullivan lands his haymaker roundhouse right on bowe, will bowe fall off the stage and crach onto a piano?

 

Thus speaks Mendoza's love child.atsch

 

We can natuaraly make much more acurate comparisons between Sullivan, and fighters like Jeffries or Johnson, that we can when comparing him to Bowe.

Not many people know this but John L Sullivan actualy had a comeback fight against Jim McCormick, in 1905, a full 15 years after this picture was taken.

thejokerswild

This content is protected

This content is protected

This was about the time that Jim Jeffries retired, and coincided with Jack Johnsons prime. Sullivan was 47 years old and tipped the scales at 273 lbs. He knocked McCormick out cold in the second round and left him unconcious for a full five minutes.

McCormick was no world beater but he had a first round knockout win over Kid McCoy, had gone the distance against Gus Ruhlin, and had lasted six rounds against a prime Jack Johnson.

Now if Sullivan could do that at the age of 47, weighing 237 lbs, and coming off years of inactivity, then what do you think he was like in his prime?

 

I think, in his prime, John was hell on wheels for anybody who stepped into a ring with him. And, based on my understanding of his style, that hell would probably go double for slick boxers.

 

address the issue or suck it.

 

WTF?:huh

You said earlier that Jackie Johnson was really overrated and not all that great cuz he lost several fights to guys who were smaller and perhaps a wee bit older around the turn of the 20th century while Johnson was still mastering his craft.... Oh, yeah, plus he was decked by Stan Ketchel in Colma, Ca. in 1909 while as champion......

My point was, since Holmes lost his title to a 200 pounder who bounced up from 175 back in 1985, your saying that diminishes Holmes' credentials and was not a great champion, either??? Also, Holmes dropped the rematch to Michael Spinks in 1986 by way of jackass scoring in Vegas, but, we must also hold that against Holmes as well.?.?

In any case as to how you look or feel about it, I think both "Johnson and Holmes" are solid top-5 heavyweight greats......
:hat:yep

MR.BILL

 

Really? And it wasnt filmed? That is absolutely astonishing. Why was the comeback aborted?

 

gotcha... Holmes a) was getting on in his years and Spinks was crafty enough to eek out the first fight. Johnson was KO'd, not outpointed, by a lightheavy when he was 23 or so, an age where Tyson, Dempsey, Louis were all closing in or at their primes. b) Holmes won that second fight.

Johnson's less than palatable outcomes happened close to or at his prime, Hart, Ketchell, O'Brien, Johnson, Choynski... I well know he wasn't the most focussed of fighters, liked the big life, but that is a major factor in the make-up of a championship fighter... and Johnson, love him for his grit and style, was not a great championship fighter.

 

I understand what you are saying, but it is still no excuse. I am married to a black woman and have two children and I can only imagine what people would have said to us back in 1890. But, everyone back then wasn't racist. Maybe a majority, but not everyone. If some people back then were smart enough to know that people are all individuals regardless of race, then why should we somewhat excuse a racist like Sullivan and the fact that he refused to fight a great, deserving challenger like Peter Jackson. I know John L. wasn't the only color line drawing, non-fighting heavyweight champion, but he is the one that we are talking about. So, I am no Johnl. hater or anything like that.

 

First of all, I do see your point of view and take that into consideration. I am not in any way being a "know it all" or anything of that nature. I already stated that my "chicken****" comment was a stretch and meant to be. You and I don't have to be completely alike to have a converstation. Things that are typed are easliy misunderstood. I don't believe John L. was a chicken****, but I do believe that he was either a racist or had some fear of fighting, not all black fighters, but someone like Peter Jackson who tried to get a shot for years. Now, where you and I disagree is the issue of judging and dead man from a bygone era. I am of the opinion that a man who lived in the judgement of the public eye during his own time like a world champion or a president, shouldn't be immune from be judged by the people who come after him. Now, I am not a person who goes around judging everyone, nor do I give a crap about other people's judgement of me. You think I was being over critical to John L., but I am a true fan of the sweet science, so anyone, for whatever reason who doesn't fight the best guys out there during his time, then yes, I will voice an opinion. These are public figures we are talking about here, not our close friends or next door neighbors. When a fighter of today refuses to fight the best fighters or over prices himself out of the best fights, do you not say or think of something negative about that fighter? If you do not, then that is good for you, but don't expect that everyone is going to be like you. I am plenty sensible and didn't take any of your remarks personal so I will not return the attack campaign that you launched against my "thinking". Have a nice day. :good

P.S.: You mentioned that I would not call John L. a chicken**** to his face if he were alive and in his prime. You are right about that. Not because of fear of a beating, but out of respect. I would though, in a nice way, confront him about it if I ever saw him and if it were convenient to do so. I would just like to know why not fight Peter Jackson. He was the Australian Champion and a deserving challenger. I don't mean that I would walk up to him and say "hey you coward, fight like a man!" Nothing like that, of course not. I said that my comment was misunderstood and yes it was in bad taste. I was simply stated in my own critical, young man way that I strongly disagree with Sullivan not fighting the best fighters out there from all races. It isn't just John L. that I feel that way about, anyone who doesn't fight the best.

 

Perhaps, Sir, i may answer you the way Mr Sullivan might. Mr Jackson was a very good fighter. He was well beaten by the Australian champion Bill Farnan in 1884 and he responded by getting his head together and taking a year off from professional fighting in 1885. He come good in 1886 though, with a win over the tough Mick Dooley and and a ruggest 30th round KO victory over Tom Lees. Lees was a tough fighter, who took the title from Jacksons conqueror Mr Bill Farnan, although it is worth noting that Mr Farnan, and the man many considered Australias greatest ever, Mr Jackson's trainer/promoter (and most of the aussies greats), Mr Larry Foley had aged and were past their best by this stage, which is what allowed the young brigade to take over.

Truth be told, so had i. In 1887, Mr Jackson was set on fighting Paddy Slavin, and the winner was to be one of the main fighters in line for my title. Unfortunately the fight fell through, although their are rumours that Mr Jackson licked the SOB in a barroom brawl. I can respect that.

In 1888, Mr Jackson turned to the usa and started mounting a serious case for my own title. One of a number of young fighters who were in the running for a title shot. But definitely one of the better ones. 1888 was a tough year for me. For some reason, the press seemed fixated on forcing me to fight LPR rules, and i had to fight Charley Mitchell, who would do nothing but lie down on the ground when he came near me. Then after his fight, i challenged the world coloured champion George Godfrey to a fight, and despite me being in the ring ready to fight, he changed his mind and refused to fight me, presumably because i would not agree to pull punches and make it an exhibition. Eventually the police prevented the fight from going ahead. Ironically, Mr Jackson did in 19 rounds what i would have done in 4. It is worth noting though that Mr Jackson was putting on some impressive and dominating exhibitions against some top class fighters, mainly 4 rnd ND fights. When i was in my prime though, if i didnt KO them in 4, i gave them the money. Sometimes i gave it to them anyway. Still, Mr Jackson was one of many good young fighters and my time had long past me by. Age will always catch me sometimes.

1890 and 1891 was not a good year for Mr Jackson. He fought the two best fighters in the world in Mr Jim Corbett and Mr Goddard. Unfortunately, he could only draw with both. IN fact, Mr Goddard Knocked him down and came within an inch of winning his australian title from him. What could i do, i needed to take the first big money fight to come up, and as you can see from the Draw, Mr Corbett had every bit as good a claim to a fight as Mr Jackson did. I fought Mr Corbett and age caught up to me.

Now why that yellow chicken**** Mr Corbett didnt fight Mr Jackson is another story altogether!

1886 to 1888

 

No way that Sulliavan may win this, Bowe would just rip him apart with his superior jab, strength, speed, size, and power.