Where would you rank John L. Sullivan?

I struggle to see the reason for having Sullivan as the LPR GOAT when he had like 4 fights with the bare knuckles. Can’t really compare his bare knuckle opposition to Mace, Sayers, Morrissey, King or even more far back like Cribb, Belcher, Broughton either imo.

 

I agree.

Sullivan was primarily a Queensbury fighter, who reluctantly made the transition to LPR rules to unify the titles.

As an LPR Champion he would be at best middle of the pack.

As a Queensbury Champion you could have him as high as you like, depending upon what you think of his era.

 

I consider him the greatest of all time and would beat or give a stern challenge to any champeen who followed up to and including Usyk.

 

He definitely had a reason for top 10,from what I saw and read about his style,he had good skills to pair up with his powers,the "shift that Kilrain can't escape from" is also a great maneuver.

 

I think that the first question that we need to ask, is ho good was Sullivan's opposition?

There is obviously nothing wrong with his results, as far as was possible at the time.

So how strong was the division when he took over?

The short answer is not very.

After Jem Mace retired, the lineage was decided by a fight between Allen and Goss.

Basically elderly versions of the men that Mace had defeated, and who were not considered the best ort brightest opposition in his prime.

Goss won the title, then lost it to Paddy Ryan.

If you think that Sullivan is a realistic candidate for being the weakest lineal champion, then understand that Ryan clearly also held that accolade, as did Goss.

 

So did anything get better during his long reign?

I think that most people would agree that a new generation of heavyweights was emerging, when Sullivan was slipping into gentle obsolescence.

However the results are not entirely one sided.

A young Jim Corbet got schooled by Jack Burke, who Sullivan beat easily.

A past prime Charlie Mitchell knocked out Frank Slavin, who admittedly seems to have been drunk at the time.

My point is, that perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to assume that the men who came after Sullivan, were much better than the mean that he beat.

The evidence doesn't always support that viewpoint.

 

I can’t rank him among the very best. But he will always have recognition as being the first champion of organized boxing

 

I'm yet to research Sullivan in depth and simply don't have the knowledge of his opposition to confidently rank him, so I don't.

Of those posting in this thread, I'd defer to Melankomas and Janitor as clearly being well read about Sullivan and the era.

 

Simply untrue

Sullivan is not the only fighter through the bare knuckle era, which isn't exclusively LPR, to use gloves in his fights.

Sullivan is the only fighter who uses gloves and fight under LPRR to be considered a QB fight.

You can classify him with men who know what a neutral corner is if you like. You can conflate him with men who know what a scheduled round is if you like. You can pretend he fought during a time when weight divisions exist if you like. You can pretend Sullivan is a QB fighter all you want but the fact is he has more in common with Figg than Usyk. Because he isn't a QB fighter. He is an LPR fighter with gloves on.

 

Calling 1880-90's boxing organized is quite a stretch.

 

He was probably terrible in terms of skill...

 

It wasn’t organized in the sense that it would later become by any means no. But it was the beginning

 

Find ANY example of John L Sullivan fighting ANY fight that did not have LPR integrated into the fight.

On top of that John L fought mostly exhibitions

Beyond that they were mostly debutants

Above that the reach of boxing was so small one can only claim the best of America and The British Empire.

Moving past that, John L is the only champion I know of the be crowned on a draw during what you call QB. Sure there is precedence, in BK.

And finally, John L was the champion of whites exclusively. Take on any man, except Old Chocolate.



Beginning of organization? Bro, you are looking at the death fits of the gambling den controlled era of boxing. You are looking at exactly what caused the bodies to form and organize boxing.


You can tell me what you believe and what your opinions are all you like but it isn't my opinion John L fought LPR with gloves on to be called the first QB champion. That's simply what happened. Not my opinion John L fought exhibitions to be champion. Not my opinion John L is given titles based on draws. Not my opinion boxing was indeed so unorganized there was no mechanism to force a champion into defense on the merit of the challenger alone, simply what happened, and, those precedence are found more often in times before him not after him.


Full credit for setting the tone and all that, I am disagreeing with categorization not glorification. He's the last LPR champion, Corbett is your first QB champion.




Who fights like John L? **** all no one?

Who fights like Corbett? Tunney does! And who did Tunney inspire?

Fitzs-Gans-Dempsey

Ryan-Marciano-Tyson

Where's John's style seen today? Isn't?!?!?! Oh but Def Burke reads pretty similar doe. Who'd've ever thunk it.

 

We don't know what Sullivan fought like, I don't think. We have photos and a little playing around for the cameras as an old man. It's enough to show he didn't fight anything like a modern fighter, but not enough to reconstruct it. He's different enough from the manuals that I'm guessing he fought with a strong personal or regional "accent." But that's a guess.

We do have enough film of Corbett, and he fights like an LPR guy, IMO. Or at least he fights mostly in the somewhat-consistent style that the "teachers of sparring" all marketed in their books from about 1860 to 1895ish. Including Edwards, who was a professional.

 

He's the first gloved champ in a way, lost the title in his first defence