Gloved Era Fighters, That John L Sullivan Beats??

I'm not as familiar with McGovern, honestly. I will say that as a general matter, the old time writers -- just like some modern ones -- tended toward hyperbole, generalization, strained comparisons, etc. For a modern example, see Ruslan "White Tyson" Chagaev.

 

That's true, most journalists don't pay attention to details and they link two fighters simply because of punching power or something else.

That said, McGovern didn't look like Mike Tyson at all. Based on his fight with Gans, he had oldschool stance and his defense was focused on crouching. I think it's fair to assume that Sullivan could look at least somehow similar.

 

McGovern also came a little while after Sullivan, IIRC. Remember that Sullivan was essentially in his prime by 1882. So I'd expect an even more primitive style from Sullivan than McGovern.

EDIT: I also think it's dangerous to rely on chains of stylistic comparisons. If somebody compares McGovern to Tyson (seems a bit of a stretch, but that's just me), and then a different person compares McGovern to Sullivan, you have two layers of comparison where information could get lost and distorted. You can't just go "Sullivan = McGovern = Tyson." Doubly so if the people making the comparisons come from different eras.

 

Fun fact: elephants do actually train themselves sometimes. Even when they're in zoos they lift logs and rocks. In the wild they frequently bash their heads against tress and strengthen themselves lifting things or wrestling with each other.

Now if only we could find a way to teach them proper lifting methods to target specific areas...

 

It's still very, very speculative since you have to make educated guesses on very simple things like how the dinosaur walked, let alone how competent of a fighter it would.

Obviously you'd favor a collosal dinosaur like an Argentinosaurus over an elephant for it's sheer size and strength (up to 130 ft long and at least 90 tons). But any dinosaur within the same ball park of an elephant in size (5-10 tons), it's very difficult to imagine how the matchup would play out. Behavior isn't preserved in fossils, let alone hunting or combat methods.

Clues like healed T-Rex bite marks on triceratops skulls and the fact it had an insanely powerful bite force make it obvious the T-Rex was an active and very aggressive predator, but it's tendencies in combat are hard to guess without footage. Scientists don't even have a consensus on whether it was a solitary hunter or pack hunter, whether it used ambush methods, if it had a toxic bite like a komodo dragon, etc.

 

I don't like the word "primitive", it has pejorative connotation. Sullivan built his style to fight in complete different rules, so naturally his style was different, but I don't think it was primitive - at least I don't have any reasons to believe that.

It's a bit like saying that Terunofuji has primitive style, because he wouldn't be able to beat Usyk in boxing match (hyperbole, I know but you get the point).

Yeah, I agree here. It's dangerous to make too direct comparisons based only on someone's opinion. Without footage, we can only make a guess that won't be too educated.

 

Hypothetical animal fights in general are pointless, because animals almost never fight up to their potential because it doesn't make any sense for them. It's not as they could fight against each other and someone else would give them food, water etc. like we do in our society.

 

In other words, it is probably fair to say that there were a dozen dinosaur genera, that would make quick work of an elephant, and probably many more.

 

Well that's the thing. Animals are all about self preservation. That's why they mark territories and mostly yell at each other in order to avoid conflict. Because there are no hospitals. The herd/pack will usually leave you behind if you can't stand back up in a few minutes. And if you're a solitary animal it's even more perilous and more urgent to play it safe and only fight to hunt or defend yourself as a last resort.

As for paying animals to fight, that technically already happens (except it's illegal in many places). You have rooster fights, dog fights, bull fights, etc and the animals are breed and selected for the most aggressive ones to go all out on each other. Funny thing is Roy Jones actually started the foundation for his fighting style by watching roosters fight. He says in interviews that he always studies animal fights and applies what he observes to himself. This is also how kung Fu started.

 

Hundreds.

There are more than 200 sauropod species and I'd estimate at least 80% of the juveniles would demolish an elephant, let alone fully grown sauropods.

Ceratopsians have at least 60 species. I would heavily favor them in spite of the fact they are often similar in size to elephants. It's a bad match up because the ceratops species all have very heavily armored frills to protect themselves from the elephant tusks while the elephant has nothing but tough leathery skin. Essentially you'd have a fully armored knight covered head to toe in steel with a spear vs a guy wearing basic loose leather armor and a spear.

 

I always wondered how effective ankylosaurus weapons would be in a fight against similar sized beasts like elephants, ceratopsians or biggest rhinos.

 

It's an interesting question whether there's been any absolute (i.e., not heavily rule-dependent) improvement in boxing skill. An absolute improvement MUST have happened at some point in boxing history, but one wonders whether such improvements were still happening circa 1890.

Regardless, I meant "primitive" as a convenient shorthand for a style that wasn't optimized for gloved boxing.

 

I think the question is whether or not the animals are forced to fight to the death like roman gladiator days.

A dispute at the water hole probably wouldn't end in blood shed. They both would be wary of each other 9/10 and it usually wouldn't end with serious injuries.

If they have to fight, the elephant could possibly flip the Ankylosaurus over since it's so low to the ground with stubby legs. The Ankylosaurus weighs about 4 tons and an elephant can flip hippos over which weigh 3-3.5 tons. It still wouldn't be easy since the Ankylosaurus is very heavily armored with spikes sticking out every where. Some also speculate that they would drop low with their bellies on the ground to avoid being flipped in case a T Rex tried to do that.

As for the tail club, it would absolutely devastate any elephant and cripple it for life if it landed. However, the elephant is not stupid and is one of the smartest mammals. They always avoid dangerous points like cape buffalo or rhino horns. If it saw the Ankylosaurus turning around to swing it's tail it would back off, elephants don't just attack mindlessly and aggressively.

The question then becomes reptilian explosive short burst of energy vs mammalian long term endurance. If the Ankylosaurus immediately goes aggressive and starts swinging away, it has a very good chance of landing a critical strike and ending it since even a cautious elephant is still a very big target and can't turn on a dime or evade such a long powerful weapon for long. But if the elephant takes it's time, it can wait for the dinosaur to get tired and then try to gore it or flip it.

 

Very effective I think.

The largest ones, might have been virtually immune from predation!

 

You have it backwards. His prime was cut terribly short because he was a hard core drunk. His brief prime was about 82-83.