Hello everyone new to the forums and have always enjoyed boxing history and I've enjoyed what I've learned here on this forum from other posters about boxing history. I have a question though about something I've been wondering about since I read Adam Pollack's books on John L and Fitzsimmons. Who was the harder hitter between the two? I know its hard to say with no film of Sullivan and only two of Fitz that I know of, but for the guys who have done more research than me who do you think hit harder? I can't come to a satisfying conclusion with just Pollacks books which are well researched but they're the only books I"ve read about either man.I would like to get some other opinions. From people who have been at this game longer than I have. Thanks in advance.
Fitzsimmons knocked out a much better class of fighters, and produced some dramatic ten counts. There ring encounters with Fitzsimmons ( 2 flights 1 sparring session ) produced fatalities. I think Fitzsimmons hit harder. You could argue Fitzsimmons was more accurate and scientific in approach, but Sullivan might have had more brute force. They said Fitz knew the anatomy like a doctor and attacked its weaker points. Fitz knew how to get weight and leverage into his punches.
They were two of the best finishers of all time, but they were different kinds of finisher. Fitzsimmons was a trap setter who awaited his opportunity, while Sullivan sailed in and took his opponent out of the game as quickly as possible. I would guess that Sullivan probably had more power in absolute terms, because his opponents seem to have been discouraged as soon as he touched them.
Sullivan dominated the heavyweight division as no one has since. During his prime, he presented a greater gap between champ and next contender than any other heavy.
Thanks guys! So Sullivan may have been somewhat like a Max Baer. Alot of pure raw power without much timing or skill to go with. Then who would Fitz be compared to? Both were true marvels though the more I read about them the more I'm amazed!
I'd take that bet. I highly doubt Sullivan could finish Maher in 1 round and Sharkey in 2 rounds as Fitzsimmons did. In fact an upset is possible. Which gloved fighter did Sullivan blow away that others did not finish as early or sooner? Charlie Mitchell was likely the best Sullivan beat. The trouble is Corbett also Ko'd him in three rounds.
Sullivan clearly stated boxing improved greatly when he retired. The only film on Sullivan is him hitting a bag after he retired. He looks very unimpressive. See the 1:05 mark on this link [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t-a-9GsJzY[/url] Sullivan was a big puncher in a time when there were few big punchers. However he avoided the two best while champion in Peter Jackson and Frank Slavin so its hard to say how good he was.
You are totally clueless about the timeline with Sullivan. The fact that you compare the Mitchell that he beat, to the version that Corbett beat, is just one example of this.
Charley Mitchell was naturally larger than Dempsey, and they fought under different rule set anyway. Corbett KO'd a boxer who didn't have one meaningful fight in almost 6 years prior to that.
Janitor, Sullivan beat Mitchell when he was a 21 year old kid. Mitchell floored Sullivan by the way, at 150 pounds. Mitchell was not KO'd post Sullivan until he meet Corbett in January 1894. Mitchell was 32 for that fight. Mitchell was active in 1883, and 1892 with ND's against Hall and Slavin, and in 1890 Mitchell beat Jim Mace himself. He wasn't shot.
