Gloved Era Fighters, That John L Sullivan Beats??

Heh, Sullivan wasn't much of a boxer, in the scientific sense, he was a come-forward, face-first brawler. Sure, facing any of the modern heavys he would stand a chance, but all it took to beat him was to duck, dodge, and slip punches. Really, the only man from the glove era that I feel he has a chance against is someone like, say, Bob Fitzsimmons or James J. Corbett. Any fighter with slight movement, and he loses easily, possibly by KO.

 

How can you know that?

 

The jab hadn't even been invented by the time Sullivan retired. He would beat no champion or contender from the 1930s onwards.

 

Yes and no.

It's true that the jab, per se, probably didn't exist in 1890. At least per the manuals. But a type of straight left lead (a bit like a fencing lunge, but evolving into something more jablike) did exist.

 

Just because they didn't call it a jab, doesn't mean that it didn't exit.

There has always been a straight left lead punch.

 

I think they had a "vertical straight" which is similar, but in gloves it can't cut you and it doesn't carry the same power. It was useful for not breaking your wrist, and it could cut outside of gloves. But it's near useless in gloves. Or at least, it's a very inferior technique in gloved boxing.

 

An exaggerated, and therefore textbook, example of what they had can be seen in the Corbett/McCoy "sparring". It looks like what you see in 1890s manuals. It's more a demonstration, but useful for exactly that reason.

 

Tommy Burns might be a good shout out.

...all due respect to Burns who is sold a tad short when discussing the HW lineage.

Either way, its impossible to stack different eras up and especially for John L. is sort of a joke to try.

 

The vertical straight was used long beyond the bare knuckle era.

Jack Dempsey was a big fan for example, and he was critical of the jab.

However, I am certain that the jab existed in some form during Sullivan's time.

Men have always had two hands.

 

Sullivan himself always got somewhat miffed later in life, when a fighter claimed to have invented a new punch.

He insisted that the punches had always been the same.

 

Yeah, I have to apologize, I don't know much about fighters pre 1920, and I carry a bias against them. I'm repeating information my coach has told me, but I haven't done too much independent research. I just want to say, I respect you as a poster and almost friend, so I don't want hostility to begin to come between us over my less informed opinions.

 

Oh, certainly no hostility. My post wasn't intended to criticize you -- just to point out a good video that shows an exaggerated example of the way people punched back then. (Exaggerated so you could more clearly see how it worked.)

 

Jea

But he virtually did so for stretches anyway, in his fight with Foreman.

 

If your coach is getting you to where you want to be as a fighter, then keep that relationship in place.

That is what it is all about.

You can still question them, about their opinions on boxing history, and the evolution of boxing technique.

I doubt that they are more certain than we are.

We can debate and be friends here.

 

That is a safe call.

The power and weight disparity, are likely to overcome any evolution of the sport, that we are somehow not aware of.