Where would you rank John L. Sullivan?

Just a short response so far,

1) If you're saying we should reevaluate because boxing has changed too much, ok, that would be another long discussion.

2) Nah, I really, genuinely do like the idea of sashes and the rest of the old pageantry. If you want me to turn that into an argument against your position, I guess I could, but I was just making a comment that I found it fun and whimsical, and explained why.

3) Not quite sure I understand what you're saying re: your framing of ancient history. Are you saying that categorizing Sullivan as an LPR-fighter-with-gloves-who-shouldn't-be-considered-lineal is a historical model akin to, say, Turner's frontier thesis? And that any weighting that people put onto what's important for a lineal titlist are just spinoffs of Fleischer's original model? I'm not sure the lineal title is quite like that, since I don't think it's doing much analytical work. It's more like a hall of fame / honor roll used in colloquial conversations by fans. Or a shared tradition, like the way institutions hang up photos of their putative founders. That said, even though Sullivan didn't hear the phrase "lineal title," I assume you're not going so far as to deny that the concept that "the guy who beat the previous champion is now, himself, champion" was alien to Sullivan's era.

4) From what I remember, most of Sullivan's fights were gloved, ended with KOs on a 10 count, etc. So when you say most of Sullivan's work was LPR when he only had 3 of those, I'm guessing you are proposing something revisionist, and would ask which angle you're coming from. Are you drawing a line where his exhibitions are "sparring" and therefore not QB?

 

What makes Sullivan fascinating, is that he is a primeval monster.

When you look at the skeleton of a T rex, you can see that it was a terrifying animal, but most of it is reconstructed based on educated guesswork, speculation, and imagination.

That is what Sullivan is in boxing terms.

In a desperate attempt to flesh him out, we turn to lines of evidence that we would dismiss with later fighters, because they are all that we have.

What seems clear to me however, is that he represents one of those rare occasions, when a sporting talent emerged who was a generation ahead of his time.

 

I rate him as the title of his autobiography calls him, a 19th Century gladiator. In his very short prime , maybe 81 - 83, he had strength, speed, huge power, a terrific chin and stamina. He also never fought a top level M of Q fighter by any standard that followed his own size. He rarely trained or sparred. He supposedly never threw a jab or a body shot. He was closer to a terrific tough man contestant with natural gifts than a M of Q fighter even though most of his fights were M of Q. His opposition was the worst of any heavyweight champion by far and least experienced . As Muldoon said to him while training him for the Kilrain fight, tormenting him to train ...get into shape if you want to be a great fighter ever again if you ever even were a great fighter. That said what a great American story.

 

It might plausibly have been, but where is the evidence?

 

Absolutely nobody except Muldoon, would have questioned his greatness at the time.

I know exactly what Muldoon was doing, because I have done if myself.

If an athlete is not on track, then sometimes you just have to be a classless jerk, and attack their ego.

Then you hope that this anger somehow makes its way to the opposition.

 

Name one M of Q heavyweight Sullivan defeated that you rate in the top 100:heavyweights of all time. Case closed.

 

True but he was ten generations before his time.

 

I don't have any of them in my top 100, but I also don't know enough about them to say that they couldn't have been.

 

Paddy Ryan, Jake Kilrain, Charlie Mitchell, Patsy Cardiff, Herbert Slade

 

You're either not serious and trolling or embarrassing yourself.

Anyone serious ?

 

I will ask you a serious question.

Is there any era since then, where you do not consider the second best heavyweight of the era to be a top 100 all time heavyweight?

If the answer is no, then there might be a case for the second best heavyweight from Sullivan's era, whoever you deem that to be.

 

Serious as a heart attack. Those men were made of tougher stuff than the show ponies we pay to watch these days.

 

Janitor, pathetic.

 

I'm not even sure you read English. Your jiggerish is irrelevant to the thread.

 

Not sure he even won the Cardiff fight. I'm with He grant here. Sullivan could of had a few scalps of some better fighters than Paddy Ryan, Jake Kilrain, Charlie Mitchell, Patsy Cardiff, Herbert Slade, Jack Burke (missed one)


Kilrain was pretty good but I think he was faded by the time the bout actually came around he had to wait like 16 months without fighting & basically watch his "being in shape" slip away.

I would of liked to see Sullivan face George Lablance or George old chocolate Godfrey both were his seniors. Sullivan faced none of the guy's before him which is really odd. not counting Ryan who was more a non-QB fighter and not that significant. Ryan was nothing more than Jem smith was to Kilrain (just a guy)>

Sullivan did not even face the top challengers (before Jackson) In Joe Mcauliffe & Pat Killen he faced the 3rd best of that time in Patsy Cardiff & it's quite questionable if he was capable of beating him he proved nothing in his bout with him.

He did attempt to face Godfrey and he attempted to face nonpareil jack dempsey.

He would of had a solid resume with all these opponent's (not counting Jackson) as i'm trying to give him a benefit of a doubt here.

But in Sullivan's defense I can't remember which Ref it was but He had Sullivan rated as the top of the pioneer's.

I would rephrase "Name one M of Q heavyweight Sullivan defeated that you rate in the top 100:heavyweights of all time."
To name one of a top 60 fighter he beat during the pioneer era.

The only one he has is Jake kilrain.
But as i stated he could of had several in Dempsey, godfrey, Lablance.
and unfortunately I truly feel he didn't face the best version of Kilrain. Sure Sullivan had to wait just as long as Jake did but some fighter age differently and it really affected poor Jake Kilrain.

And this being his very best win really makes me wonder. I have a video of "ranking John L Sullivan" on my channel.

I don't think he was anywhere near as good as the australians (as they were taught clinically) not self taught like sullivan & kilrain. They were the new Era fighters compared with these old "irish" dinosaurs and the gap was huge. Sullivan was buddies with Choynski after Joe Choynski faced Goddard & told him about him Sullivan wanted no part of them & he was in australian at the time. They rode back together dejected at the incredible gap between the style's. As all the aussie were trained by Larry Foley & Peter Jackson. I think even Sullivan would have trouble's with a Tom Lees much less a real heavyweight. As the australian's were light years more trained than them. They fought endless sparring sessions that Foley sent them through which Sullivan never did. He grant pointed this out in his post.

but I think on his very best day he could of maybe beat a Denver Ed Smith (another foreign fighter). Who beat a prime Goddard. Denver Ed had youth pure will & toughness unmatched, he was a rugged fighter that would cause any pioneer fighter trouble.
That's giving him every benefit of a doubt.
A very experienced George Godfrey was getting his brains beat out by Denver Ed Smith and Sullivan would really have his hands full but at his highest true potential that's about where I would guess he would be. In a very non bias approach.