John L. Sullivan vs Deontay Wilder.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by CroBox29, Apr 17, 2021.

  1. Devon

    Devon Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,926
    1,402
    Dec 31, 2018
    Wilder in 1 round
     
  2. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,257
    14,328
    Feb 15, 2006
    How could you possibly make such a specific prediction, when you don't even know what Sullivan was?
     
  3. Devon

    Devon Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,926
    1,402
    Dec 31, 2018
    Nobody had the technique then as they do now or balance, or ability, there was simply nobody to learn from, I don't see how he would be better than anyone else who was around the such as Bob Fitzsimmons, James J Jeffries and Jack Johnson and lets be real Wilder KO's all of them in 1 round from what I've seen, I'm not saying they're bad, they just weren't evolved or big enough, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves and living in the past
     
    Moggy94 and Pat M like this.
  4. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,257
    14,328
    Feb 15, 2006
    I think that you are making a raft of assumptions here, which are not necessarily correct.

    I also don't think that Wilder would have been regarded as a technical genius in any era.

    Also, even if Sullivan was a s bad as you think, a first round knockout is a fairly unusual event, even when there is a disparity in quality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
    louis54 likes this.
  5. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,109
    8,698
    Jan 30, 2014
    @reznick Please consider doing a Lomachenko highlight video, but with a mustachioed Sullivan's head swapped in for his.
     
  6. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,257
    14,328
    Feb 15, 2006
    Facetiousness aside, do you get my point?

    We don't have any idea how good Sullivan looked, and he was so dominant, and declined so dramatically, that he could theoretically have been a one off talent.
     
  7. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,854
    7,053
    Mar 17, 2010
    Loma doesn’t move sharp enough. Nobody would believe it.
     
    young griffo likes this.
  8. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,109
    8,698
    Jan 30, 2014
    I get your point but if Sullivan truly possessed that level of skill, I would think that it would have come out a lot more in contemporaneous writings. And the fact that Corbett was so widely hailed for his brilliant mobility and technical innovations--often specifically in contrast to Sullivan--makes it less plausible that Sullivan had been some kind of technical virtuoso ala Lomachenko.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2021
  9. cuchulain

    cuchulain Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,391
    2,179
    Jan 6, 2007
    Th game is too different between these eras to hazard much of a serious guess.

    If it was in a bar or a back alley, with no rules though, my money would be on John L.
     
  10. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    42,111
    6,695
    Jan 3, 2007
    London prize and Queensbury are two totally different sports
     
    fists of fury likes this.
  11. Pat M

    Pat M Active Member Full Member

    1,020
    2,151
    Jun 20, 2017
    It would be hard to believe that Sullivan was a "technical virtuoso" and within 25 years boxing had devolved to the level of Jess Willard.
     
    swagdelfadeel and young griffo like this.
  12. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,257
    14,328
    Feb 15, 2006
    For every article praising Corbett, you could probably find a hundred praising Sullivan.

    It is hard to imagine how Sullivan could have been praised more by contemporary writers!

    Read either Pollack biography, if you want to see it for yourself.

    Furthermore, their styles were at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

    It is like comparing Mike Tyson to Chris Byrd, when their primes did not remotely overlap.

    Corbett was never an innovator by the way, he was an evolutionary dead end.
     
    Entaowed likes this.
  13. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    65,257
    14,328
    Feb 15, 2006
    Sullivan was considered a marvel in his day.

    Willard was seen as big, tough, good at using his size, and not that much else.

    There is no reason to think, that Willard would have been seen as a technically good in Sullivan's day.
     
    70sFan865 and louis54 like this.
  14. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,844
    1,446
    Dec 16, 2012
    This makes sense, & it should be added that writer's comparing the two were dealing with comparing Corbett to a washed up alcoholic.

    But why do you say the former was an evolutionary dead end?
    You belive none of his technique & innovations were learned by others?
     
  15. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    10,436
    7,203
    Mar 19, 2012
    Legend has it Sullivan knocked out 400 men. He was a fighting MoFo. His hands looked kind of quick in that one film of him messing with a guy before the Johnson/Jeffries fight. He was an old man by then.