how good was john l sullivan?

But some of them actualy did.

That is the scary thing.

 

Really? I'd seriously like to see one of them Any good examples?

A common source of the "old-timers > new-school" argument is the myth of the extended fights, though.

And although a 50 round fight is interesting, some people just see the "50 round fight" and think "oh my god it was a total war that lasted for dayzzz!!" when those were clearly the exception, and most of those 50 rounds were nowhere near as intense/exciting/brutal as a round of boxing today.

 

No, you´re right, boxing back in that times, without any gloves or with real rules wasn´t that brutal like today, today the referee stops a fight only when someone is almost death (latest example, Calzaghe- Manfredo)...

 

:yep

 

Let's break down this post and examine some of the key points-


1. Boxing had no gloves in the early days.
Correct.

2. Boxing had no rules in the early days.
FALSE. Bareknuckle boxing had rules, and trying to slander bareknuckle boxing, even with such sarcasm, by saying it had "no rules" is only cheapening the achievements of the bareknuckle champions. They were sportsmen, not cavemen.

If you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo, a total joke stoppage that is the EXCEPTION to the modern-day TKO, to glamorize bareknuckle boxing, on the other hand...don't make **** up like "bareknuckle boxing had no rules" to help prove it.

The lack of "brutality" in bareknuckle boxing is from the extremely small amount of punches thrown in a bareknuckle fight in comparison to a modern-day gloved fight.

Yes, a bareknuckle punch hurts worse, and can cripple you in one shot MUCH more easily than a gloved punch. That's the reason many bareknuckle fights ended with VERY few landed punches in comparison to the modern fights. A modern fighter, however, needs many more punches to **** his opponent up beyond recognition, and he only has 12 (or 15) rounds to do it, as opposed to 50.

Besides, if you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo...I will use Morrison-Mercer, which is almost unarguably a bigger beatdown than any in bareknuckle history :good A guy getting trapped in the corner and flat-out mashed for 15+ unanswered punches is more brutal than a guy getting laid out with one shot.

 

I know the rules of boxing, whether if the Marquess of Queensberry Rules or the London Prize Ring Rules, etc., IMO, it´s crystal clear that in the time of Sullivan it was much more brutal, you can compare it when you look at the injuries the fighters of that time suffered with the likes the suffer today...

 

they did fight longer, and theres also the fact they knew how to feint, shift, place their punches more accurately than guys do today, fought more often, had harder lives, etc etc. modern fighters are better in our minds because we see them in high def close camera work. the old style looks crude and amateurish to our eyes, but the film doesn't do them justice and rest assured a lot of those old timers would do just fine in our modern age.

the old timers used tried and true methods of training that modern guys did. they lifted weight, they hit the heavybag, they ran, they jumped rope, they sparred, the only thing I'm unaware of them using is a speed bag.

 

Sullivan was racist, but that was normal back then, remember slaves were set free in the early 1860's (which all the white immigrants from those days were racist) and that's how there parents raised them, especially in the southern U.S

 

As do I.. You know a lot of people seem to forget the style changes between today and back in Sullivan's time. Of course Sullivan would have a hard time beating any current fighter using todays rule set... and any of todays fighters would have similar difficulties defeating Sullivan under the rules he fought under. Sullivan was one tough SOB under the rules he fought.. I mean, can you imagine the shock on the faces of today's fighters if a guy of Sullivan's calibre was to come at you with a pure wrestling move

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Sullivan may be considered crude using today's rule book, but I hardly think he was all that crude fighting under the rules that existed in his time.

 

OK

A longer bout will tend to be fought at a slower pace and I must emphasize that the examples that I am about to give might be exceptional.

There were a number of lightweights around the turn of the century who were able to maintain modern workrates over 20 or even 45 rounds on film. Examples include Battling Nelson, Ad Wolgast and Joe Rivers.

Perhaps the most remarkable example is Bat Nelson who averaged an amazing 85 punches per round over the course of a 42 round fight against Ad Wlogast. Both of them ended up as basket cases and I suspect that this fight was the primary cause.

 

I find it funny that some of you think they boxed at a proper modern pace, bare knuckle your hands would be destroyed after fighting at a modern pace for a few rounds never mind 80 etc.