Corbett - Jackson Draw a myth ...

To all intents and purposes Sullivan was the monster puncher prior to Fitz, a harder hitter even than Choynski. It would have been interesting, not to say educational to have seen the results of his right hand landing on Jeffries mandible.:think

 

You could definitely make a case to the contrary.

If he was crude by the standards of the next generation, it was because the standards had gone up, not because he was crude by the standards of his own era.

 

Reports state John L was a revelation in getting into range swiftly and landing straight punches to the point.He was obviously a cut above the dock walloper he is sometimes portrayed as.

 

In his own time, you find a reference to his "science", for every two about his power.

Sullivan claimed never to have had a trainer, thought some evidence contradicts this. He certainly spared a lot.

Now it is hard to say how the Australians might have improved science, or indeed if the improved it. I think that they were very much Jem Mace school fighters.

 

i happen to think the top 1890's fighter from and including John .L were superior to any era until the mid to late 1920's at least. Sullivan, Corbett, Jackson, Slavin, Goddard, Maher, Choynski, Sharkey, McCoy, Ruhlin and Jeffries top most fighters in the following twenty years. A bunch of light heavyweights, a clown of inept White Hopes and a decent gargle of black dodged fighters. And among these Sullivan was respected, big time.

 

That was all basically taken as a given at the time.

It might have been wrong, but it would be a rash man who dismissed it casually.

 

Correct, these guys gave endless exhibitions and tours, at least they got paid to keep in shape and spar.

 

Fitz knocked out and fought much better opposition. If power is tied to class and the class glove fighters lasted in some cases the distance or many rounds with Sullivan I find it unlikely that hit as hard as Fitzsimmons did.

Had Sullivan fought Jackson, Slavin, or Goddard we would have a better idea of how good he was.

 

Even as an alcoholic Sullivan was far too good for the available competition, but in 1887 he breaks his arm fighting Patsy Cardiff.

He never really recovered from the injury, and it came just as some stronger challengers were emerging.

He managed to beat the odds and get himself in shape to beat Jake Killrain, but after this it was a question of which of the best gloved contenders got him in the ring first.

 

Im not trying to denigrate Sullivan or his era but at that time there werent a whole heck of a lot of actual professional fighters. You are talking about an era when many of the best known boxers were little more than bar room brawlers or neighborhood toughs. Combine that with the fact that several of Sullivan's best opponents were far smaller than him (again, a byproduct of the limited amount of fighters at the time) and it doesnt make for a very compelling argument for Sullivan being a great fighter head to head. You can take a look at the guys physique from photos we have of some of his fights, training, etc and you can see that while he may have been a tough guy and a great athlete in his youth what passed for professionalism in his era was a far cry from later eras. Im not one to subscribe to the idea that boxing has improved over the years (because I think its **** today) but I do think the argument is valid for Sullivan and Corbett's era.

 

I agree that it was a weak era, but I think that was mainly because it was a transitional era. There was an enormous talent pool in the United Kingdom up to the 1860s, before the authorities decided to stamp out prizefighting. Sullivan came along in the no mans land between the decline of the bare knuckle era, and the rise of the gloved era.

I don't dispute that Corbetts era was a lot stronger than Sullivan's, but I still think that Sullivan was better than Corbett.