John L Sullivan v MIke Spinks?

Sullivan is hurt by film.

On the other hand we have Bert Suger say Corbett is the "First" Boxer, but we know thats a myth.

 

I am not sure about your ko point, as i have heard it argued both ways. I would have thought smaller gloves were better for pin point kos that rely on timing eg Tyson, or hearns while Larger gloves suited clubbing KOs eg foreman. But you are definitely correct about it "hurting more" and this is what i was getting at. Roy Jones v Ruiz is a good example in Round 1 Jones landed on Ruiz and it appeared to have zero effect (eventually accumulation meant that he did start to have effect). With smaller gloves, those round 1 punches would have probably had immediate effect and presumably hurt Ruiz more. As the damage built, it is more likely That jones would have kod Ruiz early. This would make him a far more effective fighter at heavy with smaller gloves. With the bigger gloves it took Jones a round or two before he could start to discourage Ruiz with his hits. This is a big reason why power (and ie size) is more important today. There are others.

Agreed. 4 rounds more than compensates!

The point you have missed though is that because the gloves hurt more, the smaller fighters who generally land more than bigger fighters are able to hurt them more. This means that the bigger fighter is discouraged and forced to defend which allows the smaller fighter to score a knockout much easier than he woul dhave if the fight was with larger gloves.

I am not sure about defence. It used to be that a fighter who rested his right hand on his chin could be struck by a left hook and this could have been the reason why the right hand was held low (not by Sollivan from what i understand). The flipside then, is that the right cross takes longer to deliver and again this makes speed of a fighter more important. The front hand guarding the rib cage, i have never understood under any rule set but even today, the likes of Vitali, Golota even Lennox Lewis predominantly use this style. Maybe it has to do with laziness or maybe there is another reason. If thrown properly, it probably increases the speed of the jab a little bit.

I am not sure about fewer combinations. I dont necessarilly think that there was fewer combinations for this reason. I have seen modern and old timer boxers (though obviously not anywhere near as far back as the John L times) in street fights and they all go the same way. 4 or 5 punch combos that drop and or ko the unskilled fighters. I believe that the biggest reason for fewer combos is that when a fighter is hit with a punch, a smart fighter will clinch and wrestle which means you physically cant find the extra punches to put together the combinations. And from the clinch, it used to be a place where you could land and do damage. It isnt now, look at people whinging because Tyson nearly broke a fighters arm in the clinch. If you look at the John Ruiz fights, when he goes into punch and clinch mode, he is rarely hit with multiple combinations. This would be a very hard thing for modern unskilled clincher to deal with.

I have got to be honest, I dont see Jack Johnson back peddling all that often, i see him pushing his opponent around like a rag doll in there. With the weight on the back foot, it makes it much harder fro him to be pushed backwards and it makes it easier for hiim to get his weight behind his punches. I would have thought it made it harder for him to move laterally and dance around the ring like a Tunney or Ali, but he seemed to think otherwise. Incidentally, the dog paddle (glove blocking) was proved effective in the modern world by Chris Byrd. Johnson never really "leaned back" that was more the style of Corbett and Ali. When Ali did it, it was effective and referred to as elasticity. I dont think it is the case that covering up wasnt effective. I think it is the case that covering up was less effective than clinching, where you could turn defence into attack. Incidentally, if you did simply cover up, your opponent could grab your arms, wrestle them down and land with the other hand, imagine trying to rope a dope under the old ruleset.

Agreed

Zero punches? He did land, he just did not land often enough or with enough power to discourage vlad. With smaller gloves, he would have caused more damage when he did land and this would ahve slowed down vlad and discouraged him a little and Byrd could have started to land more often. (of course it may be that Vlad was just too good and would win anyway, but Byrd has a better chance with the smaller gloves).

The wrestlers comment is ridiculous. They are not wrestlers because the referee would disqualify them. This is a major flaw in modern fighters (through no fault of their own) and in many ways it makes the concept of a modern "skilled" super heavy incorrect, as no modern super heavy is skilled in the clinch. In fantasy fights it really does put modern fighters at a substantial disadvantage and in effect these rule changes means there is never any real prospect (even with a time machine) to get the fare fantasy matches we often talk of. I believe if you are discussing these matches, your rules have to allow for fighters to use all their skills. If they outlaw head punches in 100 years, does Ali have to be considered against the future heavyweight champion on the basis that he is not allowed to punch to the head?

I find it hard to believe you have watched the video of vitali with that comment. Vitali didnt and doesnt use a high guard at any time in the fight. Please advise what time his guard is high. in fact his left arm is held so low, it appears as if he is guarding against the dreaded kick to the balls. In fairness though, some may say that if sharkey held his arm this low, he would have not been knocked out by Dempsey.

Actually i think that this comment was originally made by Janitor and got mixed up in the quote due to a modern technological glitches. Maybe if Benjamin Franklin designed this quote system the error wouldn t have occurred

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

you ****ing made my day.

 

Always nice to have made somebodys day!

 

mike spinks by walkover. heavens be, any amateur kid would wipe the floor with any so called great from pre 1900, due to their 'advanced training techniques'

 

Spinks humiliates and destroys Sullivan. LPR rules, modern rules, gloves, no gloves, Sullivan has zero chance.

I can't believe this many people are picking him to win... Insulting Tyson by comparing Sullivan to him... Holy cow....

 

I allways thought of sullivan as more of a combination of marciano and greb...with a bit of foreman/briggs smothering pressure.

so obiviously spinks has no chance.

 

if Spinks could stay away from Sullivan and get in get his work done and get out of Sullivan's range Spinks will win. John L Sullivan is one of the most interesting early day fighters he fought in a pretty much different sport back then, i only wish we had footage to see it.

 

Sullivan was a physical specimen, a dynamo. Given time to transition to the modern ruleset and pace, I think he would do startlingly well. And taking Spinks would not surprise me.

 

From all contemporary accounts, it seems Sullivan was a real force of nature in his prime.
A good deal better than Steffen Tangstad

 

Tyson would be honoured to be compared to Sullivan, and rightly so.

 

spinks easy by knock out

 

If Sullivan was even half as fast and ferocious from the opening bell as they say he was, i think he beats Spinks early.

 

Michael Spinks of the 1980's vs Sullivan from the 1880's? Hard to say, but if I had to bet my life I'd probably go with Spinks and be very nervous.

If those two came along and peaked at the same time, I'd heavily favor Sullivan over Spinks.