Pat Killen > John L Sullivan

1883 was really the first year of the sport and you can argue pretty much everyone of merit was fighting guys like that because no one had a pro record under the Queensbury rules. A few years later this is no longer the case and Sullivans still doing it.

You aren't wrong to say that was the end of Sullivans prime and Sullivan was resting on his laurels even then. Sullivan was champ on the basis of beating Mitchell who got passed around after that. If you want to take that argument further down the food chain and apply it to the legion of debutants you're probably right. But at that point it was defendable.

 

I so want to join in on this debate, but right now, I haven't got the time. But later,,,

 

He did. Mitchell was not one of them smaller power types either.

 

You’re deflecting hard here and making up imaginary talking points to argue against (like in your other replies), I was responding to your comment; acting like Godfrey was suddenly some force in 1883 that Sullivan “flat out ducked” compared to 1881 after beating Hadley and like Kilrain didn't beat his ass that same year. Learn how to read what you’re replying to.

Also, you're trying to act like Sullivan crushing some cans means that he ducked Godfrey which is ridiculous. Almost every great before 1960 crushed cans alongside fighting the best even during their peak, Sullivan particularly more during the tour as fighting locals was part of the experience, but does the fact that they didn't fight EVERY B-level guy suddenly mean they're ducking them? Find me a single contemporary, even someone who hated Sullivan, that put Godfrey at the level of Mitchell, Burke, Donovan, McCaffrey, Kilrain or even at the level of lesser Sullivan opponents like Ryan, old Goss, Jack Stewart? Why was he willing to fight people so far out of Godfrey’s league, what did Godfrey bring to the table in 1883 that he didn’t have when he and Sullivan almost fought? What reports are there of these improvements that had Sullivan so shook? Sullivan fought plenty of better fighters than Godfrey and people at the time knew that, but he ducked Godfrey because they had shaky negotiations where Godfrey might have genuinely outpriced himself? You do realize that contract negotiations like this happen in every era, right?

You didn't even answer my question; based on what is Godfrey outboxing Sullivan before getting knocked out? Who did Godfrey outbox to give you that idea? The most ironic part of your tantrum is that Godfrey himself was like 165-170 pounds and would be as grossly undersized against Sullivan as most of the others were, yet you’re treating him as this huge titan that Sullivan ducked to beat up some welterweights instead. The fact that you list 170 pounders Hadley and Godfrey as some of the “biggest threats that Sullivan avoided at the time” while putting Sullivan down for beating Burke (who literally weighed 170 pounds against him) just puts on display your embarrassing lack of self awareness. Burke was literally bigger than McCaffrey when they fought Sullivan, yet you give Sullivan more credit for beating McCaffrey and none for beating the “welterweight” Burke? LOL

 

“Dodgy sources” lol Adam Pollack is the most reputable author on this era, tf are you talking about? CyberBoxingZone was one of the best archives for fight and exhibition dates from the period that boxrec wouldn’t even have. Are you this embarrassed about being proven wrong?

“He made

a public announcement this evening that he

was ready to fight any man in the world,

barring John L. Sullivan, for any amount

up to 35,000.” St. Paul daily globe (Saint Paul, Minn.), April 14, 1887


https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn90059522/1887-04-14/ed-1/?sp=5&q=killen+sullivan+&r=-0.039,0.279,0.484,0.24,0&st=text

You can literally find the direct quote by Sheedy that Adam cites word-for-word, alongside more info. Killen was offered 30% of the gate before he even fought Cardiff.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn9005...sullivan+&st=text&r=0.027,0.366,0.135,0.133,0

People cut fighters like Goddard, Cooney, etc plenty of slack for how alcoholism affected their careers, self destruction isn’t a competition it’s just how life goes for some people especially at the pinnacle of fame like Sullivan. Sullivan was horribly alcoholic even by the period’s standards, barely showed up in awful shape more often than not after September 1883. I’ll give Killen credit; he from my knowledge appeared to maintain discipline for a longer period, I also recall an article of him saying he’d fight Sullivan in spite of not being confident if he’d beat him, for a better deal. Sheedy made a crude public mockery of Pat during the in ring announcements for Sullivan-Killen, pretty mean ****.

I’ll admit; my memory was foggy when discussing Killen-Cardiff earlier, but that doesn’t take away from my point of Cardiff willing to take the fight to Killen for 10 rounds first time around compared to not being willing to take the fight to a one armed Sullivan THAT HE KNEW WAS INJURED. This is a point I’ve made in my past discussions with HistoryZero regarding comparisons between how Cardiff fought Killen compared to how he fought Sullivan, which I’d expect you to know considering you stalk my previous threads. But I get it; you’re desperate to run away from this debate and you’re looking for a way out. It’s also pretty stupid to baselessly accuse Sullivan of ducking Joe McAuliffe when joe hadn’t beaten anyone of note in their prime before Sullivan literally almost died. You also act like Sullivan didn’t have an insurmountable amount of praise from people who did everything to destroy his career like Fox, were very judgemental of foreign boxers like the British, and (justifiably) hated him like Australia for how he basically gatekept the title in his later career. There is a near unanimous verdict of boxers, trainers, sportswriters, who saw him in his prime that thought that he was a unique physical talent even when those people lived on to see Dempsey and drew comparisons. The ones more objective with how they rate newer fighters are more interesting