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

^^^ Sounds like a conclusive result to me.

Kilrian just won a match in the same year vs. a pretty good George Godfrey, and was only 32 when Slavin defeated him. Unless Slavin was injured or ill, I think he defeated a prime or near prime Kilrain.

 

Sullivan's prime was in the 1880's, and he was active with two fight up to 1888. So its fair to say anyone who made a name prior to 1888 would have been a good choice for Sullivan.

Jackson was active with wins over Dooley and Lees by 1886. A match could have been made well before Corbett in 1892.

I agree that Maher did nto make a name for himself before 1888.

Goddard made a name for himself 1890 by drawing with Jackson, and beating Aussie champ Mick Dooley. I think Sullivan could have fought him before Corbett.

So Jackson for sure, and Goddard at least a year before Corbett would have been excellent title opponents for Sullivan.

Maybe so, but one of the mistakes I believe adamant supports of John L fail to offer is many of his best opponents fought him in the mid 1880's. Examples Greenfeld, Burke, and McCaffery. Sullivan failed to knock any of them out. Are you suggesting Sullivan was past his prime by 1885, at the 27?! Not sure if I can buy into that. The other part of the equation is Burke and McCaffery were decent enough. Sullivan did not dominate them at 26-27 years of age, instead he had to settle for decisions.

 

sullivan aged fast due to his lifestyle. by the mid to late 1880's he was continuously out of condition, though still described as a wonder with superfluous flesh ie fat. his inability to no knock out smaller men is no blemish, as those guys were running for their lives and a skilled tough man doing that can last a VERY long time.

sullivan refused to fight jackson, at the time it became an issue jackson would probably have won. prime for prime though see jackson v goddard with a 10x better version of goddard means that most likely that sullivan would chase down, walk through, and over peters counterpunching style in under ten rounds.

the resume is a good question. sullivan's opponents didn't have as well documented records as the guys just ten years later, and reports of the fights of them are not as numerous. they also by and large were a shade smaller than the guys later. I think the edge goes to jackson. Jackson's best win by far is slavin who was bulldozing everyone til peter beat him.

prime for prime, john l. sullivan elicited hero worship for his physical capabilities, he dominated everyone he fought until he was on a steep slide, and jackson couldn't claim that as he lost as a youngster, and was lucky to get the win against goddard. his style is to blame for his much longer bouts as he took his time breaking guys down with as little risk as possible. Reading john l's record, I'd suspect he'd steamroll a lot of those guys quicker in a more entertaining fashion.

final analysis is that sullivan and jackson each has their fans, and it's unlikely to change either sides' minds. both were legends who didn't fight each other, and that was a shame.

 

The talk about this bout continued for several days, including the interviews with the referee where he explained his decision (about the mistake of the timekeeper and his own, that Kilrain wasn't knocked out, which bets won and which lost).

 

He started slowing down in the mid 80s. By the time he fought Patsy Cardiff and broke his arm, he had slowed his activity markedly and accordingly, he was past prime but still good enough to dominate the best. Much like post prison Tyson, post exhile Ali etc.

In 1886, Jackson had only 2 years earlier just come off a a 2 fight losing series with Bill Farnan. His win over Tom Lees was a brutal 30 round affair and a good win. But, why is it that you suggest that this was enough for Jackson to earn a title shot at John L Sullivan, but you dont cry blue murder for Sullivan not giving Tom Lees a world title shot prior to 1886. Or Bill Farnan for that matter. If anything, these are bigger crimes than not facing Jackson. If you are consistent, you must demand these things matches as much as Sullivan not fighting Jackson. I tend to suggest that like Sullivan, you vastly underated the Aussie fighters of the era.

Goddard had a big win against Mick Dooley in 1890. Why didnt you want Sullivan to fight this Australian champion in 1890? Goddard than fought a draw with an out of Shape Corbett. Look at what Sullivan was doing in 1890. He had retired to the stage!

A year before Corbett, Sullivan was retired! Do you hold it against Lennox Lewis for not Fighting Wladimir Klitchsko when Klitchsko beat Byrd and established himself as the man. Or even earlier, when there were three guys vying for top spot.

The reality of the time is that when Sullivan decided to come out of retirement, the leading contenders were Slavin, who had lost to Jackson, Jackson, who had beat Slavin but drew with Corbett, and Corbett. These three were all in line for a title shot and would have got one if John L continued to fight and win and if they kept winning. Corbett got the shot first, the others easily could have. Although it is often said that Jackson was ruled out because of the colour line, the reality of the situation, as John L said himself is that the colour line was only drawn when a champion knows there is a better challenger than himself. Corbett had the record, but being younger and less proven was seen as the easier option. Ironically, stylistically he was the worse possible choice of the three. John L even dissipitated actually had a liver chance against the others. Either way, defences against any of the guys mentioned would have meant nothing in the scheme of things, unless of course John L turned back the tables again and won.

I believe Janitor has answered these questions, but i do think it a good question and i will look into these fights in a little more detail when i get the time. Either way, i think it is clear that Sullivan was slowing down by this time. He had been at the top for a long time, and his activity level was starting to decline. I dont understand why fighters with his style of fighting, Tyson, Marciano, Frazier etc are all agreed to have short spectacular primes but you have such a hard time believing the same would be true to Sullivan, particularly when Sullivans increased alcoholic consumption and abuse is so well documented.

 

Time-lines are vital in looking at this issue.
Disregard Jacksons retiral win over Maher, the Irish Peter was effectively an amature middleweight at the time.
i do think Jackson's resume is better, McAuliffe, Godfrey, Skavin were top contenders and the draws with Goddard and Corbett were more impressive than any of John L's except Kilrain.
H2H I think the Goddard(and the Farnan, Fallon, and Lambert) fights show that Sullivan had the right style to beat Jackson peak for peak. He would have no chance after 1888 though.
Boilermaker quote;
"John L even dissipitated actually had a liver chance against the others" Now that's a Freudian slip!

 

Oops.

I do think that you are correct in your summation, when i said live chance, it is not a chance that i think he would take. Perhaps i should have said better chance than he had against Corbett.

 

So he was essentially past his prime in his mid to late 20's then? While I can buy into some of this, I also think his competition level increased a bit, which is why he could not put guys away as easily. Power is the last thing to go. Not having it in your 20's?

My suggestion is a match with Jackson could have been made in 1887 when Sullivan had something left. As I poitned out Sullivan was active with two fights in 1888.

While Lees and Farnan were not as good as Jackson, I think you bring up a point. Sullivan could have meet them earlier.

Not really. With Jackson, Goddard, Slavin, and Dooley, the Aussies had more overall talent than the USA did in the 1870's to 1880's.

 

I don't think you are allowing for how bad the injury Sullivan sustained in the Cardif fight was.

He broke his arm and later had to have it re broken to realign the bones. Even today you loose much of the mobility in your arm after an injury like that.

This injury essentialy left Sullivan as a one armed fighter and ended his chances of beating Jackson.

 

bump

 

New York's Mayor was putting a lot of pressure on Sullivan-Greenfield to be cancelled. Both boxers appeared before a judge two days before the fight to assure the judge that the bout was a scientific exhibition. In the second round Sullivan drew some blood from Greefield's forehead, then landed a couple good punches, at which Greenfield began holding, at which point the police stopped the fight. The two boxers were none the less arrested, though they got off with the help of sympathetic police testimony. (This fight discussed in Pollack, 'In the Ring with John L Sullivan', pp. 105-109)

--

(Pollack, p. 114) "Some non-local sources said the police had influenced Sullivan's performance" (against Burke). "The National Police Gazatte said that in the 3rd round, Sullivan became a bit too ferocious and a policeman warned him. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle confirmed that when Sullivan scowled and his eyes flashed, the police lieutenant "shook his cane over the ropes and said warningly 'John!' Sullivan retreated and the round ended." This demonstrated the fine line that fighters had to walk in order to avoid violating the law."

--------

Pollack, p. 114 "Sullivan was critiqued by The Tribune as not being as good as he had been two years before, but that "despite the abuses to which he has subjected himself, he is still head and shoulders above any pugilist in the ring today." "

Speaking as GUILALAH: my own opinion is that Sullivan was at his best mid-1881 (when, under Billy Madden's tutelage, Sully's punches straightened out) to mid-1883 (when Sullivan began to grow fond of drink and started to adopt a 'I'll train when I see someone who makes me think I need to' attitude). I think it was a short prime; yet he remained formidable through the Kilrain bout of 1889. Infact, I think Sullivan -- since he actually trained seriously for Kilrain -- may have been better for that fight than for any other since 1883.

 

No but I tried his

This content is protected