John L. Sullivan - The World Champion

The claim could go as far back as his 1880 demolition of champion Joe Goss, or as late as his 1885 victory over Dominic McCaffrey.

 

Modern historians have arbitrarily decided its the McCaffrey fight. Thats what wikipedia will tell you.

The best answer which older historians preferred is the Mitchell fight in 1883 which for whatever reason has fallen out of favor. Both undefeated, at the old MSG, Mitchell knocks Sullivan down for the first time in a classic thus setting up the McCaffrey v Mitchell title eliminator. Sullivan v McCaffrey is a really random start to the lineage and almost no older historians saw it as such.

The historically correct answer is there is none the sport was transitoning from bare knuckle to gloves and wasn't legal in most of the US. Sullivans lineage became the widely accepted lineage after the fact. Jeffries was the first "undisputed" HW champ.

 

I have never understood the reasoning behind this.

You can make the case for it being Goss, Ryan, Mitchell, or even Killrain, but I can't see any argument for McCaffrey.

 

It doesn’t seem like people back in the day differentiated between the bare knuckle title and the gloved title, I’ve seen claims that Mace’s win over Allen in 1870 was the beginning of the modern lineage.

 

There's no such moment, as plenty of sporting writers continued to consider him only the champion of America. No consensus, no "official" title.

 

There was differentiation between them, but they sort of unified.

When John L Sullivan a Queensbury fighter, had beaten the best LPR fighters under their own rules, then he effectively dictated the rules that the title would be defended under.

The LPR boys were out of business.

 

Never got matching him up in fantasy debates against guys like Jack Dempsey when he lost to Vito Antuofermo.

 

No, John L was more mystique than proof.

Even his belted run comes off the back of a draw. He was already the man, mystique wise, so drawing him gave you the honor of saying as good as the champ, but not the champ.


TBH, I struggle to see John as a true champion no differently than the early historians struggled with Figg.


When you are not the man who beat the man but rather are the man who established the culture in the first place, special rules are to be used and imo that works in two directions. I don't mean to ever dethrone Sullivan from his position, he really did earn that, it's just he didn't earn it under the metrics in which those who followed were measured, like Figg, and that makes him an outlier when looking at champions using modern metrics.


Can you define the year the word troll became a colloquial internet term for undesirable? Exactly, John became champion under that kind of social engineering no one person takes credit for and so no one time nor event can be applied to without any argument for another.




You can pick when in his reign he became The Man and it's all pretty much fair. Heaps like 1888. IMO it's 1889, he had an entire sport to contend with and didn't put it down until 1889.


Another thing to consider is how much QB is in these "QB" fights? Look at the actual rules used and find me a single one, one, true QB fight for Sullivan. Truth is you had a very popular QB advocate challenging BK fighters to a mixed rules match. The straightest QB match of Sullivan's career is Corbett and an L.


Beat up a bunch of BK fighters under some mixed rules and then lost when time caught up and the first man who trained for QB entered the title picture.

Not saying he isn't the best of his era, but when he proved that is a question, how legitimately modern or queensberry rules his fights were is lacking, and I think it's just as fair to say John L is not the first QB champion because he's the last BK champion as it is to say he's not a BK champion because he's the first QB champion or any mix of that idea.


PLENTY started with Broughton because Figg's era is messy.

Start with Corbett because Sullivan's era is messy and all of a sudden you'll get jabronis "correcting" you without ever trying to see your perspective. If you really want to tell me I'm wrong about it and the main, usual, everyone repeats it perspective is right, cool buddy, think about all the authors I must have read and consider your ability to bring something new they did not. I probably already know and probably didn't write the response to your particular angle of attack because I already cover a bunch of **** in my posts and to cover my ass that well would mean a post so long no one reads it. Hardly any will read this as is because of its length and the lack of drone-like repetition of ideas you've already read.

 

I think the answer to this topic comes down to that as well.

It was no over night thing in Sullivan's title as lineal champion, it was a image constructed of him over the course of his career following his high profile bare-knuckle wins, during a time when boxers from different parts of America were claiming to be it's champion on grounds that were not standardized beyond, they had found no man who could beat them. Several men claimed to be champion of America, and so too did several would claim to be champion of the world. But they were medium fish in a big pond, maybe known in a region or along a coastline for their claim and ability to back it up. But Sullivan had the wins and reputation to stake claim to it nationally for the first time in America's history, with an image the public loved that went beyond the bravado and brash fighter one imagines as a boxer of the 19th century, he was a big fish in a big pond, it was just by means of Sullivan claiming he was Heavyweight champion of America, and the World, with his reputation and record that made it true.

 

Sullivan was the best in America, and proved he was better than anyone that England had to offer. That might be enough to be world champion.

He never beat the best from Australia, and William Lawless (probably their greatest boxing writer) contended that Sullivan was never world champion, and that Fitzsimmons was the first.

https://ibb.co/RBq05CZ

 

Some comments from around the Ryan fight:

In January 1880, Sporting Life said that the Ryan/Goss fight was for the championship of America.

In November 1881, Sporting Life said that the upcoming fight between Ryan and Sullivan would be for the championship of the world.

In December 1881, Sporting Life had an article entitled "The Championship of the World - Ryan and Sullivan". Confusingly, in the article itself it said the fight was for the heavyweight championship of America.

In January 1882, Sporting Life described Paddy Ryan as "the champion pugilist of the world", and said the upcoming fight between Ryan and Sullivan would be for the championship of the world.

In February 1882 Sullivan beat Paddy Ryan.

In February 1882, The Referee said the Sullivan/Ryan fight had been for the championship of America.

In May 1882 Harry Hill of New York introduced Sullivan as "the champion of the world" in advance of him sparring Joe Goss.

In July 1882 Richard K Fox of the Police Gazette called Sullivan "the champion pugilist of the world" while trying to arrange a fight against Joe Collins (Tug Wilson). Collins called Sullivan the champion of America, and described himself as the champion of England.

In November 1882 former champion Tom Allen said that he wanted to fight Sullivan for the championship of America. Sporting Life stated that this would be for the Championship of the World, and described Sullivan as "the champion".

In November 1882 Jem Mace claimed he was still world champion, and said he would fight Sullivan for the championship.

In December 1882 William Madden called Sullivan "the Champion of the World" in a letter to the Sporting Life.

 

When you entirely miss the point, I don't have much to say. Would you like me to reframe everything?

Plenty of folks start BK with Broughton ... hmm ... hmmm ...

Most do not recognize any form of boxing pre-Onomastos ...

I'm not even sure if Molyneaux is generally accepted as a champion.

Oh but Corbett, that's where I'll struggle to relieve the oddity of first by making the second top of the list. I'd be a rebel in boxing history and such.

Get me dude? I'm not denying Sullivan was best of his era, I'm denying Sullivan's era being a real QB era. I'm moving the line for when QB starts one fighter forward, Just like Broughton to Figg, Onomastos to Alus, or Hyer to Molyneaux. The point is not to degrade the previous champion but to clarify the status so that no outliers exist simply because the sport hadn't matured yet. AND I'm not even saying you should I'm just saying it's fair to do. As fair to do here as it was every other junction in time it was done in already.

What difference is it? Had I made this exact same post about Figg and Broughton it wouldn't have been any kind of controversial idea, just a boring post about an issue that's been talked to death and bring no new perspective while members group up under perspectives that have been established for over a century.