Heavyweights: Floyd Patterson vs. John L. Sullivan

No he looks fat in every photo I have seen of him 20% BF at the least.
no it would not,
no, people store fat in unique spots from person to person.

 

Sullivan's chest measurement was given as 43 normal, 48 expanded.

Now that puts him closer to Liston, than Patterson or Marciano.

He was obviously a man with a very large rib cage.

 

48 expanded jesus, he would look like a puffer fish keep in mind he was also a lot fatter then Liston where is this tale of tape? (link pls)
Look, John L was A LOT less lean then Patterson he was not much heavier he also was of similar height all those things indicate that Floyd was a more muscular man thus a bigger one.

 

Most of Sullivan pics came from 1890s when he was past his physical prime, overweighed and in bad health. That said, on few photos of young John that I've seen he didn't look puffy or overweighed.

I don't see why we should doubt that he's bigger man than Patterson. I also don't doubt that he had a lot of muscle mass. Being ripped doesn't mean that you have more muscles.

 

Look, we really have no ideal how this one will pan out since we really lack footage of John L. All we can go on is fight reports and in some way pics of body type?? I guess?
d7db2269730e4cca8913e97c5be765a0.jpg (1072×1536) (pinimg.com)

Prime Sullivan does look a man that's in fighting shape and strong. Again most of the pics are from past prime Sullivan, but the few in prime pics we have, the guy was in great shape.

 

I will try to find a contemporary source, but if you just google "John L Sullivan tale of the tape" you should find it.

As others have said, most of the pictures of Sullivan come from late in his career, or after it.

Also many of them were not taken before a fight, but when he was doing an exhibition tour.

Sullivan rarely weighed under 200, and he seems to have been a very young man when he did.

He thought his own optimum weight to be 196, and I could believe it.

 

Floyd has equally sized bones (wrist, ankles) I’m pretty sure he has the larger fists however and again as far as I can see he is leaner and nearly just as heavy.

 

And if he is, does that bring us much closer to an answer?

 

Yes Floyd is bigger.

 

He almost certainly wasn't, but so what if he was?

 

He almost certainly was based on there bones, body fat, height, weight and measurements sorry Jan John is mostly comprised of fat! and it just means that it’s a factor in the fight like I was trying to say.

 

If Sullivan's tale of the tape, and reported weights were anything like correct, then he was almost certainly bigger than Patterson, who was basically a natural light heavyweight.

He looks like a midget next to rocky Marciano.

Sullivan holds the advantage on every known metric.

Even if you somehow got Sullivan's best fighting weight down by 10lbs, that would leave them tied, with Patterson having stepped up to that weight.

Either way, I don't think that you could build much of an argument for Patterson, on the notion that he was fractionally bigger!

We can have a debate on Sullivan's best fighting weight if you want, but I don't think that it will being us much close to an answer!

 

Ugh

 

Again - Sullivan certainly had a lot of muscle weight. Just because he's not as cut as Floyd doesn't mean he's smaller. Patterson was basically a LHW who never reached 200 lbs, Sullivan would never make LHW limit.

 

I don't think there was a big difference in size. When Sullivan fought Ryan for the title, aged twenty-three, his weight was variously given as 175, 180 or 182. When he fought Mitchell the following year he was said to be in the 190s, but he was also said to be carrying some surplus flesh. Sullivan himself (possibly exaggerating a bit) claimed that, "I weighed 203 pounds, or about thirty-three pounds more than I should weigh to be in good fighting trim."