Is John L. Sullivan a all time top ten heavyweight champion ?

Perhaps we should take it down a notch going forward?

 

Lol right what is moronic is people like you actually think that primitive style fighters use back in the 1800's can compare to modern fighters. A street fight is a street fight. Even amateur boxing today isn't the same as being a pro. You don't see a amateur boxer with 300 bouts adding it to his pro record. Sullivan fought tons of guys who didn't have pro experience. End of story.

Also none of this has anything to do with the question of Sullivan being a top 10 heavyweight of all time. The answer is still no. He isn't a top 10,000 heavyweight compared to modern standards.

 

Just saying they are primitive doesn't make it true. Boxing had plenty of history and development by the late 1800's, including plenty of skilled fighters.

Even the amateur bit isn't true, if someone is a top olympian, it is taken account of. People take about world title challengers, and even world champions having won olympic medels. But they weren't amateur fights. They were professional fights, between the top boxers in nations, or top boxers between different nations.

But okay you think for about 200 years or so people just street fighted, even though we have plenty of accounts and evidence that shows they didn't, such as bareknuckle fighters holding thier own with younger gloved fighters. Then they changed the round structure a bit, and thin gloves became a bit more common in fights, and in a generation or two you had all time greats

Okay, so now you're saying your own argument doesn't matter because the topic is your position based on that argument.

 

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.

They both alter the facts to support their opinions, rather than alter their opinions to match the facts!

 

Obviously it depends on the criteria. To those that have already mentioned this, I would go 1 step further. We have to equate many things when ranking fighters, but If we are weighing solely, or very heavily on how far ahead said fighter is ahead of their piers, Sullivan should be considered for the top spot, let alone top 10.

 

Great story. I gave facts. Sullivan is a bum compared to modern heavyweights. I gave facts. Sullivan fought tons of guys who weren't even skilled for his era. I gave a fact, Sullivan isn't a top 10,000 heavyweight compared to modern standards. Hell a fighter like Butterbean would of never lost during that era.

 

Where did you give me one fact?

Why did you feel that the evidence supported it as being a fact?

Pray explain?

 

Sir, with respect, I do not know if this is coming from lingering vendetta, laziness, or just stupidity, but I gave a pretty complete answer. I addressed the assumption that rule sets trump skill sets then addressed where I rank John L Sullivan in the all time conversation and why What else would you ask of me?

Might I then advize? Spend your focus here; on ending your verse. Though understanding is poor, your strategy is worse. Thus I leap into my own domain; historical boxing, my bailiwick. My misrepresentation fuels the terrain; we'll settle the claim over these years quick.

Do not mistake me, damnation is not what I seek. I forgive you and it's your world when you are meek. Weighty are we accurs'd creatures. Creation buckles beneath our depravity. Did our sins transmute to mass when we fell? Or do sin and matter share some gravity?

 

Best damn set up and knock down I've seen in a while. **** my pansy Seuss rhymes I should have just looked up and read this.

 

Sir, with respect, I do not know if this is coming from lingering vendetta, laziness, or just stupidity, but I gave a fairly complete answer. I addressed the assumption that rule sets trump skill sets then addressed where I rank John L Sullivan in the all time conversation and why. What else would you ask of me?

Might I then advize? Spend your focus here; on ending your verse. Though understanding is poor, your strategy is worse. Thus I leap into my own domain; historical boxing, my bailiwick. My misrepresentation fuels the terrain; we'll settle the claim over these years quick.

Do not mistake me, damnation is not what I seek. I forgive you and it's your world when you are meek. Weighty are we accurs'd creatures. Creation buckles beneath our depravity. Did our sins transmute to mass when we fell? Or do sin and matter share some gravity?

---------------------------------------

I did keep it cordial. That is very cordial. All I said was I did all that you asked then I said you didn't read or if you did did not understand but I will clarify if you like. Then I said I forgive the hostility.

It is because you keep calling me other men's alts that I take pity on you and remain neutral to you. I don't need you to ask me to be nice to be nice, I have been. Your hostility isn't toward me it's toward who you think I am so I take no exception to it, but for how long will this continue? I can not be party to any conversation with you without you crucifying my intentions or even my meaning because you assume I am some other man even in threads you yourself call for manners.

Do you think it's proper to call me an alt here? Nevermind what you think I am in reality, is it proper to do it here? It's the only reason I posted. I figured you'd at least read me here, but you didn't and you haven't yet. I'll not waste my time with you again.

 

From a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with him:

I don't really care that the self proclaimed historian that just repeats the same talking points and hurls insults, and apparently has no clue when Jem Mace, Charlie Mitchell, or Jim Hall fought, thinks I'm a troll TBH.

I clash with Mendoza but atleast he argues his points, you just repeat the same garbage and seem to not bother reading half the posts you respond to.

 

Sullivan or @Boxed Ears?