Old timers vs. moderns

Sullivan Saltos Norton out of the ring breaking Nortons back. Sullivan winner by TKO.

 

Which ruleset?

John L. Sullivan is essentially a bareknuckle brawler, you can see him throwing a hook on youtube with his knuckles facing his face, supposedly this protected his wrist - I've never seen a fighter punch like this before.

On one hand, Sullivan had to adapt to a more difficult ruleset - Smaller gloves, more rounds etc. On the other hand, Ken Nortons has the advantage of learning to fight almost 100 years after the "conception" of the gloved era, and thus has the advantage of the skills developed in this time.

I'm going to be predictable and say Sullivan defeats Norton in his ruleset, and vice versa. However, I think Sullivan would adapt to "modern" boxing more easily than Norton would adapt to "classic" fighting. The sport is less brutal these days.

I'm no expert on John L.Sullivan though, perhaps one of the more dedicated historians can offer a better stylistic basis for the way the match would unfold.

 

Norton won't come out of the 1st round, it'll be a slaughter where he freezes in his usual way, but Sullivan was a sharper hitter Foreman and was quicker on foot. Bad matchup.

 

I give a lot of credit to the old-time fighters because I judge them by THE SAME STANDARDS as I'd judge a modern fighter doing the same things.

If some modern fighters came along fighting 25 rounders, boxing with small 4oz gloves, fighting maybe 200 fight careers, or winner-takes-all purses, fighting all-comers, and getting paid relatively little - WE'D ALL RATE THOSE FIGHTERS HIGHLY.

Whether or not Sullivan destroys Norton is an unanswerable question, but any modern fighter needs to do a hell of a lot to rate alongside the great old-timers.

 

'More rounds' isn't necessarily the issue;both Dempsey-Tunney and Ross-CanzoneriI were only 10 rounds.

 

this is true but most of the early heavyweight champs did not face the best of their generation because they wouldnt fight blacks.

 

More rounds isn't the issue, but it can be ONE OF the issues. We rate guys who fight hard 12 rounds a cut above guys who can go fierce in 4-rounders.
Old-timers who fought 15, 20 or 25 rounds, or more, aren't necessarily better or tougher than men who fight 12, but it might be an area where they can pick up a bit of credit.

 

Well, the ones who didn't face the best should lose points on that score. But I rate the black guys like Langford, Wills, Jeanette, McVey VERY HIGHLY. If they were the best of their generation, they all fought each other multiple times, they have to be given credit for that.

 

Right...anyway,I'm not a big Norton fan-but I take him over Sullivan(who I haven't seen)but I've seen Corbett and I think heavyweights have generally improved.

 

While Sullivan did indeed have bare knuckle fights most of his bouts were gloved contests. I dont think that the modern rule set would be as alien to him as a London Prize Ring fight would be to a modern fighter.

 

I think John L sullivan would do well in modern times. Checkout his punching technique and amazing feints at 50 years old on youtube, he was ahead of his time. The man was strong as an ox too.

 

Modern is better.

Even more so at heavyweight.

 

Yup, I meant his style resembled that of a bareknuckle fighter due to his career beginning prior to the conception of gloved fighting.

I made the same point further down my post - Easier for an old fighter to adapt to modern ruleset than vice versa.