Slavin challenged Sullivan in 1889 according to page 202 in Pollack''s book. Goddard wasn't on the scene as a challenger until 1889 when he had somewhat impressive wins. Godfrey also refused to fight Sullivan once saying he wasn't ready. While Sullivan was in the ring waiting. Also Kilrain was better than Godfrey so I don't think that's a duck.
John L's bare knuckle style, and the modern glove era style are vastly different, and it lies in the hands and the rules. You cant use the hands the same way. Gloves gave you freedom to do different things in the ring so of course John L, would say that, that gloved fighters were more advanced cos they were. The rules eliminated tactics used by Bare knuckle fighters and gave us rds instead of calling a rd when somebody went down for whatever reason. Gloves raised the skills bar. If y'all want to see what it was like in the John L days, go to youtube and check out bare knuckle fighting, if you want to see decent skills being used check out Bobby Gunn the bare knuckle champ.
You're right but you get an idea about throwing and landing punches using bare knuckle instead of gloved fists. Senya, don't give anybody ideas somebody out there is saying "Why not!?"
I have always seen Sullivan more as a gloved fighter who branched into bareknuckle boxing, than the other way round. As for his contenders, I do not think that they were a particularly strong crop, but it is dangerous to read a lot into this. Is Evander Holyfield better than Larry Holmes, because there were more strong contenders during his era?
The problem is these modern bareknuckle fighters must have studied boxing at some point, modern boxing, and therefore it differs a lot from what was common in mid-19th century, stance, arms position, using of jab, no throws, bout is stopped if one fighters holds the other around the neck and is hitting him with free hand, no falling without getting hit to end the round. They are fighting on hard, smooth surface, which allows for better and faster footwork too.
people need to understand the time line, Sullivan was on top as long as Louis but the better comp only came along in the last few years. Jem Mace actually preceded Sullivan as did Foley and neither were near as good as Sullivan. Pat Killeen is probably the one he didnt fight alongside Godfrey but I wouldnt give either much chance. For what it's worth peak to peak, I think he murders Goddard and Slavin. Jackson is much more problematic but Peter didnt like rough fighters so I'd pick John L at peak here too.
:bbb Careful, the last time a poster picked on an Aussie legend it didnt go down too well There was always rumours that Peter didnt like it to well to the body (as their was with all coloured fighters). As Peter said at the time, you just let them think that. (usually while he was grinning at his best sparring partners bangind away freely at his body).
Jacksons manager once said, that the only fighter who would have beaten him, was a prime Sullivan. Make of that what you will!
look at Jackson's trounles with average fighters like Fallon and Lambert not to mind Farnan and Goddard, styles make fights. Jackson wasn't a mover per se like Corbett. Maybe Corbett would always have Sullivans number, look at the Mitchell, McCaffrey fights. Then again Corbett couldnt handle Sharkey, a poor man's Sullivan? Cardiff, Ed Smith, Killeen, McAuliffe, Kilrain, McCaffrey, Godfrey were the main contenders other than those mentioned.
Goddard, Slavin, Maher, Choynski, Fitz, Jackson, Denver Ed Smith and Sharkey were really a good bunch of contenders, 1890-1897, as good as most periods but Corbett defended against Mitchell! Maher fought six of 'em, Sharkey four, Goddard five, Choynski met four and Corbett. Jackson met three and Corbett, Fitz met three and also Corbett. Good times.
FYI -- This is actually a secondhand version of O'Reilly's assessment of Sullivan, as quoted by Sullivan himself in the article: John L. Sullivan, "John L. Sullivan's Story of His Life," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1910. The source of O'Reilly's actual quote is his 1888 book, Ethics of Boxing and Manly Sport (page 75-76): "The superiority of Sullivan lies in his extraordinary nervous force and his altogether incomparable skill as a boxer. [NB: there is a page or so of text here that Sullivan skips over in the 1910 article]. In what does this extraordinary skill consist? In hitting as straight and almost as rapid as light; in the variety and readiness of his blows; in standing firmly on his feet and driving his whole weight and nervous force at the end of his fist- a very rare and a very high quality in a boxer; in movements as quick and purposeful as the leap of a lion. He can 'duck' lower than any featherweight boxer in America; he can strike more heavy blows in 10 seconds than any other man in a minute, and he watches his opponent with a self-possession and calculation that do not flurry with excitement, but only flame into a ravening intensity to beat him down, to spring on him from a new direction, and to strike him a new blow every tenth of a second, to rush, hammer, contemn, overmaster, overwhelm and appall him. Seems like quite a bit of hyperbole, but interesting quote.
