Getting to the bottom of John L Sullivan....

speaking of john l, anyone given this a go...

This content is protected

 

1. Sullivan avoided a match with Jackson, and Slavin. These were the best two fighters while he was active as champion.

2. I think Jackson resume is better than Sullivan's. Sullvian's win over top level gloved fighters is rather thin. A match with Goddard, Fitzsimmons, or Dooley would have told us more about his ability as a prize fighter.

3. Hard to say who was better. I would lean a bit toward Jackson.

4. Depends on the night. Are we talking Saint Patrick's day?

 

You only seem to consider the contenders who were active in the last few years of Sullivans title reign when he was semi retired.

The truth is that these fighters were not the top contenders during the greter part of his career, let alone his prime.

Also, while a strong case can be made for Sullivan avoiding Jackson, all the evidence points to him wanting to fight Slavin more than either Jackson or Corbett.

 

Since you know the fighters, let me ask you this.

Who were the top 5 fighters that Sullivan beat?

Who were the top 5 fighters that Jackson beat?

After this reply, my next question is who had the better resume of wins?

For me its Jackson by a good margin.

Sullivan had a golden chance to fight Slavin, a then undefeated two handed puncher. The fight was backed by Richard Fox editor of the Police gazette. Sullivan balked and acted like Bowe who thrashed his belt to avoid a fight with Lewis.

While I do believe Sullivan was a tremendous puncher, a fighter is best defined by his resume of wins and losses vs. men in their prime or near primes. When a name fighter is not in his prime or near prime, I expect another great to soundly defeat him / make it a quick night.

Sullivan's lack of top fighters fought to me makes me wonder about how good he really is. In heavyweight boxing punchers often blow out lesser men.

 

Wow. For openers Killrain is Sullivan's best win. I think Slavin is better than Kilrian for sure. In fact Slavin Ko'd Kirllrain in 9 rounds, and was the first man to stop him in his prime. Maher, when Jackson waxed him was a better heavy than any other fighter not names Killrian that Sullivan beat. For me, Jackson has better wins by a good margin.

Agreed, see the above comment.

Not only this, but we can see Jackson's opponents were more battle tested vs. each other.

Why did Sullivan balk at Fox's offer? And when did he balk?

I see your point, but matches with Slavin, Jackson, Goddard, Dooley, and company could have been made before 1892. And these men were better than anyone Sullivan beat, with only Killrain having an argument.

Sullivan's resume of wins to me lacks top level gloved fighters, and no I do not consider Mitchell a top level gloved fighters. Mitchell was a London Prize Ring middle, who floored Sullivan. The same Mitchel was blown out in three by Corbett.

While the era wasn't teaming with talent, Jackson, Slavin, Maher and Goddard were very good. Sullivan did not fight them.

 

Jackson, Slavin, Maher and Goddard were not part of Sullivan's era. By the time they came along, Sullivan had pretty much retired. From memory, Slavin, Jackson and Corbett were one of the three that Sullivan had offered the chance to fight, when he came out of retirement. Corbett was the one lucky enough to get the shot at Sullivan. To be honest, while it is true that Sullivan probably knew he was too shot to beat Jackson, and had wanted to lose to an American if he lost to anyone, which might have been why Corbett got the chance, the fact is that Slavin was rightfully behind Jackson and Corbet and Jackson both were equally deserving by virtue of their draw. The biggest ducker of Jackson was Corbett not Sullivan.

Incidentally, there is one unsubstantiated report of Jackson sparring Sullivan in one of his theatre engagements. To be honest, i cant remember who got the better of it, (i know one did ) so that might tell you how much credence most give to it, including myself.

One of the mistakes Mendoza, Suzy and most people make when judging John L Sullivan is comparing the Ancient version of Sullivan, late in his career who actually had some close figths with the prime John L who obliterated every single one of his opponents. There is a big difference in the two and John L's ability to beat opponents like Mitchell and Kilrain when well passed his prime almost parallels what the greats like Muhammed Ali did.

 

What do you guys think of this: Peter Jackson's story...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcspc00g/603/peterjackson.pdf

is it accurate?

 

good post:good

more than even dempsey, sullivan is subject to the legend syndrome where every win and defeat is embellished to mythical proportions. we know about as much ACURATE info on sullivan as we do thor, God of Thunder

 

I havent the time to read the full thing, but i dont see how.

For starters, on a brief skim of it, i have a few problems with the following

- John L Sullivan ignored the UNDEFEATED Peter Jackson. I am not sure what Bill Farnan has to say about this.

- It was indicated that Paddy Slavin may have had a personal dissatisfaction with Peter Jackson because of his colour. I am not sure how this fits in with Slavin's decision to help the old and sick Peter Jackson out by going on tour with him.

- It seemed to say that Jackson fought Corbett on Stage? I havent heard of this before. Seems a bit far fetched to me, unless i misread things.
to be continued

 

i've read that before myself (don't ask me where though i'm hammered). i thought it was far fetched to

 

Prime John L would have kicked thors ass.

 

Officially (per the referee's decision), Kilrain wasn't knocked out. He was hardly in his prime either.