Is there anyone who fought BEFORE Sullivan who could have taken him?

how about broughton? he was roughly the same size as sullivan, molineaux and cribb were the same size roughly as well.

a smaller lpr fighter probably didn't have a chance.

and peter jackson beats an old sullivan, but a lot of other guys would have too.

 

Since there is no useful footage of either man, I think it's important to draw up a rough framework of each man's general style, their strengths and weaknesses and noteable opponents fought.

Sullivan came to prominnence with a 9th round KO over Paddy Ryan, regarded by some as the world champion, and by others as the American champion, in 1882 in a contest under LPR rules. It's generally regarded as an easy win for Sullivan, who battered Ryan from pillar to post before knocking him down and out to signal the end of the ninth round. As Ryan was unable to come to the scratch for the 10th, Sullivan was declared the winner by knockout.
Sullivan also easily defeated Charley Mitchell, one of the outstanding fighters of the time, in three rounds under Queensbury rules, as well as noted bareknuckle veteran Jimmy Elliot in a bout where Sullivan knocked him out in the 3rd round, after scoring multiple knockdowns.
It's unsure which ruleset was used in the Elliott fight, and perhaps even hybrid rules were used.
He later knocked out the large Maori, Herbert Slade, who stood 6'2" and weighed a little over 220, in 3 rounds of one-sided action.
Slade's credentials as a fighter seem somwewhat questionable, but he was undoubtedly tough and game.
From 1883 to 1884 he toured most of the US, engaging in sparring exhibitions and the odd fight against mixed opposition.
General ring observations of Sullivan were those of a man who could punch with terrific force, who started very quickly and who had excellent quickness and agility for a big man.
Stangely, although Sullivan was known for his roundouse blows, several sources also mentioned his excellent straight hitting, and at least one source marveled at his large repertoire of punches.
Observed on source, when Sullivan was on tour in 1883: "The secret of the champion's prowess was apparent...He carries his strongly-muscled shoulders forward. The consequence is that when he delivers a blow, he doesn't have to bring the upper part of the body forward in the delivery. the arm straightens out and the blow is in with a suddenness which seems paralysing to the spectator, to say nothing of the man in front of him."
The San Fransisco Chronicle remarked:"Here again Sullivan showed how terrffic is the force with which he delivers his blows, jumping forward on his right leg at the same time, apparently throwing the weight of his whole massive body into his arms.
The movement is executed with lightening-like rapidity, and it certainly seems that no man can stand up against it."

The Seattle Daily Post-Intelligencer: "Sullivan is a marvel of strength, skill and agility...the force with which he delivers a blow is simply appalling to ordinary people...He is wonderfully agile..."

Years later, in 1889, he defeated the game and tough Jake Kilrain in the 75th round in the last championship bareknuckle fight. I think it proved that Sullivan, for once and for all, did have stamina and staying power. Granted, Kilrain was not as large as Sullivan and was physically outmatched, but the fight lasted three hours in the heat of the day.


Peter Jackson stood around 6'1" and weighed between 190 and 210 pounds.
Bill Farnan was the only guy to KO him (in three rounds) in 1884. Incidently, Farnan weighed 165 pounds. However, Jackson was still a developing fighter.

In a rematch the bout was stopped by Jackson supporters as they felt Farnan was being too flagrant of the rules. So it can be said that Farnan gave Jackson a tough old time, yet, Farnan was considered a joke to challenge Sullivan.
One Australian paper wrote: Farnan would be a good rough-and-tumble among his own set, but it makes us shudder when we picture him before Sullivan."

Jackson went on to KO Mick Dooley, who later would stop Bob Fitzsimmons.
Jackson set sail for America in 1888, impressing onlookers with his skill in bouts with Con Riordan, up-and-coming Joe Choynski, George Godfrey, and Joe McAuliffe. Not all were official bouts (The Godfrey and McAuliffe ones were) but Jackson showed sufficient prowess regardless to make many think he was the best (and certainly cleverest) heavyweight fighting at the time.

One source, commenting on his fight with Godfrey, said: "Jackson's fighting qualities astonished many of those present, while a few were disappointed with his hitting prowess...Jackson struck at and hit one of the hardest men in the world...If Jackson's well-directed blows did fail to knock out Godfrey, it is not because they were so weak, but because Godfrey's endurance was so great."

On the McAuliffe fight (whom Jackson knocked out in the 24th round) the San Fransisco Examiner reported that Jackson was "Too quick, too scienced, too much of a general..."
McAuliffe said of Jackson: "He is as quick and smart as a man can be..." and "Peter Jackson is the best boxer I ever knew", and "Those who say he can't hit hard ought to let him try it one them..."

Jackson later took on Patsy Cardiff, a fighter of respectable talent, who had years earlier drawn with Sullivan over 6 rounds, and Jackson stopped him in the 10th.

A little later Jackson fought Joe Goddard to a draw in Australia, and the fight was a vicious one.
Jackson dropped Joe Goddard twice, but each time Goddard flew right back at him. At the end of the fight, it was Goddard who appeared the stronger, according to reports, with Jackson withering slightly. The fight was declared a draw, and it had many people wondering if Jackson really could stand up to Sullivan.

The Sydney Referee quoted an unnamed US fight expert who said of a proposed Sullivan v Jackson contest: "The Sullivan that Peter Jackson is to meet is only the remnants of a great man. In his day, he was the greatest glove-fighter the world ever saw...It won't be much to Jackson's credit to defeat Sullivan as he is now, because the great slugger is past his prime...I must say though, that people who have seen the Australian darkey admit that for four or six rounds his chances of defeating John L. are slim, but if he can by good fortune survive for that length of time he would be afforded an excellent opening on gaining the day."

Who would win in a prime for prime matchup? I think it's fair to say both men would be the best each other had fought, excluding perhaps Corbett on Sullivan's side. Of course, Corbett beat Sullivan so it doesn't really matter.
For me, Sullivan was simply without peer from at least 1882 to about 1886. Jackson came into his own a little later, from maybe 1887 onwards. At his peak, he was certainly among the very best in the world, if not the best.

We have the quick, intelligent Jackson who seemed to have very little to no equal in ring intelligence for the period, and who proved himself against some very creditable opposition, against the physically indomitable Sullivan who hit with great power and was physically about as tough as one could be. Sullivan, I think it should be said, was also under-appreciated as a ring general and possessed terrific explosiveness and handspeed.

Criticisms? Sullivan's quality of opposition has been questioned in some circles. He fought the best of his time to be fair, but for long periods he didn't engage in any meaningful matches. Jackson seemed to prove himself against opposition that was at least as good, if not better, and in a shorter time frame.
For several years people also guessed at Sullivan's ability to sustain effectiveness in a long fight; in short, some questioned his stamina.
Jackson, on the other hand, seemed to prefer bouts of longer duration.

As for Jackson, some questioned his ability to take punishment, specifically to the body, as in the Goddard fight. Some also questioned his hitting power. These are areas where Sullivan on the other hand, excelled. He was only dropped once from punches in his career, and anyone who saw him fight remarked about his hitting prowess.

Again it's extremely hard to draw any concrete conclusions as there is no footage of either available, only fight reports and ringside observations which cannot always be relied upon to be accurate.

To avoid sitting on the fence, I'd say that in Sullivan's absolute peak years, 1882-1884, he may have been too much for the slick Jackson to handle. Too much ferocity and power, coupled with a great killer instinct and very quick hands.
A long fight may have suited Jackson more, but Sullivan could sustain his attacks for several rounds without apparent slowing down.
However, he'd have to be at his best to beat Jackson, who would certainly have a chance with Sullivan at any point in their careers, in my eyes.

The way I see it, if there were doubts about Jackson's durability, Sullivan would surely have exploited it. Jackson would need to survive into the later rounds, and even then it's not a certain bet he would come out on top. Not in Sullivan's prime years anyway.

 

If the post seemed a bit rushed, it's because it was. I had to skip a bit here and there...also, I should mention that I quoted extensively from Apollack's book on Sullivan, and used it as a primary source of information.

 

I think that Sullivans rep suffers a bit because some of his best oponents are largley forgotten.

Most people on this site have heard of Charlie Mitchel (mainly because he fought Sullivan in an LPR bout I suspect) but few have heard of Alf Greenfield, Jack Burke or Tug Wilson. These are all fighters who were identified in the press as the most capable and dangerous available challengers for Sullivan but got dominated.

Even Dominic McCaffrey should probably get more recognition today.

 

I would agree with that.
I'm still learning much about the old bareknuckle era preceding Sullivan, as well as Sullivan's era myself.
About the only names you mentioned that I'm familiar with are Tug Wilson and McCaffrey. (And Mitchell of course.)

 

Alf Greenfield was a slickster of the era who beat some of the top names and was touted at one point as the person who might have the tools to beat Sullivan. Sullivan stopped him in two rounds in their first encounter and they later fought a tame four rounder with Sullivan being awarded the decision.

Now Jack Burke beat some top names of the era. He fought Jim Corbett and a fair number of papers thought he had the better of it. He also held Jake Killrain to a draw and beat Alf Greenfield. Sullivan beat him by decision in an aparently one sided contest.

Frank Herald is another Sullivan victim who was highly regarded by the contemporary press.

 

Good info, thanks. I'll chase these names down and try to learn more about these guys.

I was reading about the Sulllivan v Herald fight just last night actually. Herald seemed like one of the few people who tried to take it to Sullivan. From what I read, in some circles Herald was being talked about as the next big thing, until he seemed to lose his way.

 

Herald was indeed hyped but it is hard to know whether he was the Michael Grant of his era or the guy who would have been champion if Sullivan had not been around.

 

sullivan in his prime was too powerful for men his size or larger, and too tough and skilled for the smaller men. he would have been a hard match up for most of the men who came before him.

 

tom cribb

 

Hen Pearce vs the great John L.

I give the Chicken Game a good shot.

 

Hercules.

 

A few variables to throw into the pot:

A. Bareknuckle boxing technique chanced in the mid-late 1800s to a style more reminiscent of gloved boxing today led by fighters such as Nat Langham and Jem Mace. We have to question whether fighters past this date might have had some technical advantage over their predescessors.

B. The early 1800s saw training regimes developed to something like the level of intensity and organisation that we see in modern fighters for the first time. We have to question whether fighters before this date would have been competitive against fighters after this date.

C. The early 1800s in Britain probably represented the deepest talent pool of bareknuckle boxers that we will find in any era. We have to consider that the best talents likley came to the fore during this period.

By this logic:

A. Sullivan or Mace would likley be the best bareknuckle boxer of all time head to head.

B. Tom Cribb and the fighters who came after him would have beaten the previous generations.

C. Pearce Belcher and Cribb would represent the cream of the best crop.

Conclusion:

All I would comit myself to is that the best bareknuckle boxer was somwhere between 1800 and 1880 and probably not between 1820 and 1860.