Gloved Era Fighters, That John L Sullivan Beats??

I don't think there is anything to go on to compare Sullivan with M of Q champions other than he managed to go almost 21 rounds as a shot drunk against a prime Corbett .. when you think that McGregor gassed out against Mayweather in 10 rounds that was a hell of an accomplishment so we know he had stamina and could take a shot as surely Corbett hit him many times over that course of time . we know he had a huge heart .. we also know he had serious power in his right hand .. He had natural gifts .. however he pretty much had next to zero training and experience as a M of Q prizefighter , a flat out amateur ..

 

To be fair, I think you can make an educated guess that the second scenario is more plasuable than the first one... and I'm saying this as someone who doesn't treat Sullivan like an amateur.

I find it highly unlikely that there was a man in the whole history that could beat Louis and Ali on the same night within boxing rules.

 

Sullivan was recognised world champion by prize fighting community back then though and despite the narrative, he was very dedicated athlete who trained hard to prepare for fights. Who did ever recognise Joe Savage as the champion, other than himself?

 

So do I, but to be honest with you, we can't even prove that Sullivan couldn't fly!

 

We can make a good guess.

I've never seen a footnote reading "DISCLAIMER: Maybe Sullivan could fly" in any serious work about boxing history.

 

I would the say the " modern " from around the 20s onwards would be a complete anathema to the old boy, for a start he would be flummoxed as to why the round didn't end when he " threw " his opponent to the floor, the whole compilation punches coming at him at I would assume would also give him nightmares ( from what we have read , his peers would appear to throw single punches ) he would be outweighed considerably by almost all the HW from the late 60s to present, oh dear !! ok so to throw him a bone, maybe he beats, Burns ?
stay safe guys.

 

By this logic we can't prove anything and although I'm well aware that some people have such radical beliefs, I don't think it would be productive to use this approach on this forum.

 

Yes I would ignore this possibility, unless a significant amount of evidence emerged to the contrary.

The problem is that some people are applying that logic, to things that Sullivan might very plausibly have done, like performing some of the same moves as modern boxers.

 

Depends what you mean by "some of the same moves." I think Sullivan's technique looked more like Corbett's than Tyson's, based upon the fact that all of the fighters and manuals from around Sullivan's era look more like Corbett's technique than Tyson's. As do the tiny scraps of Sullivan we see in photos and clips.

 

Dedicated ? He was a drunk from 1884 on and fought fat and out of shape .. his signature victory against Kilran, not under M of Q, shocked so many because few thought he could come back from the abuses he had put himself through in addition to his illness .. I believe a prime Sullivan was an exceptional athlete and a highly skilled fighter but never trained with any consistency for M of Q ..

 

The verbal descriptions of his style, make it sound a lot more like Tyson's than Corbett's.

Realistically it was about as far removed for Corbett's as you could get, at least by the standards of the era.

Some observers described Terry McGovern as " a miniature Sullivan", and that is probably quite telling.

 

I will add a caveat to that.

He had a punishing schedule of exhibitions, which was itself enough to maintain a baseline level of condition.

James Toney didn't do anything except sparring for much of his career.

 

"At least by the standards of the era" being the key words here. I'm not saying Corbett and Sullivan had the same approach to boxing. One was a slick runner. The other slugged. I'm saying at the level of fundamental technique -- the basics of footwork, punching, and defense -- they were probably more similar to each other than either was to Tyson.

It's perilous, IMO, to rely too heavily on verbal descriptions of a fighter's style. It's even worse to use them to disregard the visual evidence we do have. People did that kind of thing all the time in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Medieval and Renaissance art is full of examples where somebody is illustrating a scene from an ancient text. And the Medieval/Renaissance artist fills in the gaps of the ancient description with what he "knows" it must have looked like, based on his own era's ideas. The results are often very strange, and not at all ancient. Lots of Roman legionaries running around in knightly armor, for example. Anachronism should be avoided to the extent we can.

 

He was dedicated athlete up to the point when he started to drink too much and stopped training on consistent basis. I don't think Sullivan was a heavy drinker since the beginning of his career. Anything past mid-1880s is basically past prime Sullivan anyway.

 

What do you think about this Sullivan-McGovern comparison?