James J Jeffries v.s John L Sullivan

:good :good :good

 

Here is an article on the two. A good read that describes the styles, and has the opinion of a few others.

[url]http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=HNS19100704.2.23.3[/url]

 

Sullivan was like a bigger, stronger, better and meaner Sharkey. And Sharkey fought Jeffries to a standstill after 45 rounds of slugging. Sullivan had natural killer instinct. Jeffries was too nice/soft like Willard. A better athlete than Willard but smaller. Sullivan fed on pressure and attention while Jeffries shied away from it and shrank. Pressure whipped Jeffries. He wouldn't have the quickness to keep Sullivan honest. Yet all Sullivan would ask is that Jeffries come to hit and be hit. And Jeffries would do that and he'd get stopped
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2yBnAfN2-I[/ame]

[url]www.youtube.com/eslubin[/url]

 

This wasn't unanimous. 'Prof.' Mike Donavan, around 1919, and light-weight champ Jack MacAulliffe, around the time of Carnera-Baer, both opined the Sullivan they saw was the greatest heavyweight they'd ever seen.

Sullivan, in 1907, was interviewed to the effect that boxing had progressed greatly since his time and Jeffries, and that, each of them matched just as they were at their best, Jeffries would have won. (I would not view that, however, as a concession that Jeffries would ahve won had they both come along at the same time).

Anyways, I think Jeffries would have likely won if they'd fought just as they were at their best; but I'm very unsure who would have prevailed if one had come along in the others time, developing in analogy to how he developed in his own time.

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

My own view of Sullivan's prime was that it was from mid-1881 (when his punches started straightening out under Madden's tutelage) through mid-1883 (after which he began to take a more casual attitude to training and drink).