Jack Johnson .Vs. John L. Sullivan

Oh of course not, it'd be just he and Sullivan.

I'd still say Johnson, however.

I'd rate Sullivan a lot higher than I do if he fought Black opponents.

 

This is true, public sentement would have been great, which sucks, ****ing racism. This prevented him from fighting the great Peter Jackson. :twisted:

 

If Sullivan had fought Jackson it would have been towards the end of his reign so Jackson would just have acted like a highly payed grave digger like Corbett did.

Despite Sullivans overt racism his legacy suffers less from the colour bar than most great white champions. The best black fighter around in his hayday was George Godfrey who Jake Killrain dismantled before Sullivan beat him.

 

A little extra on Sullivan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iYlnVBYIuM

 

Muldoon enlisted the aid of a baseball bat to keep Sullivan in line and get him fit for Jake ,still Mitchell was a middleweight,and Johnson ,for his times was a big heavy,and vastly more skilled than Mitchell ,imo,though Mitchell did box a draw with Kilrain.Sullivan's comment after the draw with Mitchell was "I might have beat him if I had a shotgun".As to Sullivan meeting science in the ring,Dominick MaCaffrey who fought Sullivan and Corbett in gloved contests was in no doubt,he was a lone voice before the Corbett dethronem ent of Sullivan ,having been totally outclassd and bewildered by Corbett's skills ,which he found completely outside his experience,he stated in print. He'll lick the big fellow as easy as breaking sticks".I think Johnson was a definite improvement on Corbett.

 

Sullvian was about 5'10 1/2 inches, 190-205 pounds in shape.

Johnson was a shade over 6', with his best weight being 195-210.

Both guys had a listed reach of 74"

If we are taking both guys at their best ( Say Sullvian in the early to mid 1880's, and Johnson from say 1907-1912 ) in a modern queesberry type of fight, I'd lean toward Johnson on points being the most likely outcome. Sullvian's best chance of winning is landing the bomb, or making Johnson gun shy.

 

Interestingly Johnson had a shorter reach than his predesessor Tommy Burns ,who was only 5 7.M ,were you surprised Cox didn't rate Jeffries in the top ten Heavies? Cox seems to be striving for an even balance between the eras.

 

Cox had Jeffries as high as #4 once. He has reshuffled the deck as of late, and seems to be giving modern fighters its due.

 

I think that this is probably the biggest dream fight of all time.

In later years guys like Ali, Tyson, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano are thought to be the dream matchups, but none could be bigger that this. Their eras are very close together, so we know that the likelihood is that it is going to be a good close fight. The hate between the two (although both later appeared to at least talk and probably respect each other) would be played up by the media in a way that made Johnson Jeffries seem like nothing and that would make Ali Frazier seem like nothing. I am not sure how time machines work, but i am guessing that once one is invented, there is a good chance that at some time in the future when Johnson defeats Jeffries, there is a good chance that someone will appear out of the crowd in a time machine, with a Prime John L Sullivan!

ON the fight itself, this would be of the highest quality. In fact , despite what detractors of both these guys say, there is every possibility that at one point in time, both of these guys may just have been the greatest fighters ever, it all depends on unprovable subjective qualities. There is no doubt that if he lands clean enough and often enough, John L is capable of knocking Johnson out, but same goes with Johnson. It is impossible to say who would get the advantages in the clinches and wrestling, but Johnson's uppercut will definitely land plenty and cause some damage. Particularly when you would think that the John L 2 arm forwad jostling stance would appear to most to leave himself wide open for the uppercut, which would give johnson a big advantage. I think it would probably be the difference. But it really is an anything could happen fight. If johnson fights like in the Hart fight, he loses on points. If Sullivan lands hard and early and discourages Johnson, he wins on points. If Sullivan connects as cleanly as choynski did, he wins by knockout. If Johnson keeps up his concentration and isnt tagged cleanly and isnt discouraged, he wins on points. If johnson finds the early range with the uppercut and Sullivan cant adapt, he knocks him out.

If i were guessing, at this stage, i would say Johnson wins on points with some close moments on both sides. If it is a fight to the death, i think that despite the hate and determination, it ends in a draw with both parties embracing and agreeing to call it quits.

 

I have no idea who would have won this fight.

We're supposed to imagine Johnson "a few years earlier" against a "prime' Sullivan; I would take this to mean about mid' 1881 (when Sully's punching straightened out) till mid 1883 (before John started living for drink).

Let me make the minor comment that, size being a combination of nature and nurture, taking Johnson back 20 years might -- might -- have resulted in a slightly smaller Johnson.

My major comment is that Johnson, if he had primed in Sullivan's time, would have had to know both London and Queensbury fighting, just as Sullivan did. He would not be able to specialize in Queensbury and, if their fight were a Queensbury fight, I think it fair to imagine Johnson's skills as not quite so finely honed. Or perhaps his skills would be in some ways different (from the historical Johnson's) in kind, as well as degree. Since the post designated a certain number of rounds, I presume we're looking at a Queensbury fight.

Looking at Charlie Mitchell, Charlie pretty much got smashed by a prime Sullivan when they fought Queensbury. (Reading Pollack, I get the strong impression that Mitchell's knock down of Sullivan didn't hurt him at all; he caught JL when JL's legs were crossed -- which is a legit knockdown, but it didn't at all seem like Sullivan was hurt). I think Sullivan wasn't in the sort of shape for the Mitchell rematch that he was for Kilrain; it might be, even still, that Mitchell's surviving had a lot to do with the London format (long recovery periods and, if hurt, going down for more rest from light blows).

The consensus in Sullivan's day was that a little science, more or less, didn't matter (I'm paraphrasing something quoted in Pollack). Did the Johnson of the mid-late 1900's have radically more technique than the fellows Sullivan defeated? Maybe. Would the same be true of a 1882 version of Johnson? Perhaps, but maybe not to the same extent.

Again, I really don't know how to call this fight, except that Johnson would have to be very, very good.

 

I don't know if there was a time limit on the rounds, but if at least one fighter was down from either a punch or a throw, the round is over and you have one minute to literally get back to scratch. So, you could easily have over 30 rounds. Must have been pretty boring, actually.

Stamina and conditioning must have been very important factors under those rules. World class fighters rarely are out for a minute, causing a win by knockout to be very hard. You really had to devastate your opponent. Sheer brutality. A swarmer would be much, much more effective than a puncher. Although by swarmer i mean someone with great stamina; i don't think a Joe Frazier style would work bare knuckle style. But a guy like Foreman would've done horrible under those rules.

 

Prime against prime, I am sure Johnson would easily beat Sullivan under MoQ Rules, but I wasn't too sure of the outcome under LPR Rules.

You have convinced me.:yep