John L. Sullivan vs George Foreman

How do you see the fights playing out? What causes their victories, and in how long?

 

You can't rate Sullivan as a M of Q fighter without the asterisk that he was at best a transitional fighter ... you can say he was a physical marvel w natural strength, speed, power, stamina, a terrific chin and killer instinct ... I think the title of his autobiography best describes him .... a 19th Century Gladiator ... that aside Foreman has five inches in height, six inches in reach and a good thirty pounds on him ... in a bar fight / street fight, who the hell knows ...

 

I also considered the concept of a street fight or bar brawl. Possibly more intriguing.

 

Hart outpointed Jack Johnson and Burns was good enough to dominate him almost start to finish. Hart was a great fighter who was never the same after the Schreck fight. The big issues with Tommy Burns that plagues him historically is his size and winning the HW belt coming off a loss for the MW title and not fighting the top American HWs. He was a great champion but one you're not going to pick to beat other champions. But if Lang couldn't beat Burns its doubtful Sullivan could. Lang had more power and size if nothing else.

If Hanrahan got lucky against Hart Sullivan can get lucky against him but I wouldn't pick that to happen. Hanrahan is the only LHW or HW title claimant to retire with a 100% KO rate.

Maher and Tom Sharkey are the 2 lineal champs Sullivan has the best shot against and its not particularly high IMO.

I don't just think just all HW lineal champs beat Sullivan but so do all title claimants and most title contenders he didn't fight. The only titlist I might favor him over is Dan Creedon and thats the sort of career I see Sullivan having in the next era Dan Creedons but if he was a little bigger and stayed at HW. A list of HW contenders Sullivan didn't beat I could favor him over would be Dooley, Ted Pritchard, Tut Ryan, Steve O Donnell, Pete Everett, Jack Palmer, Jewey Smith. Denver Ed Smith, Gus Lambert and Munroe are guys he probably has a good chance to beat but I wouldn't pick Sullivan based on certain feats of theirs.


Theres other good HWs Sullivan has a chance against but for me its all 1890s, 1900s guys with maybe a trickle of 1910s. Sullivan is a 5 ft 11 brawler whose only only relevant KO was against someone weighing 150 pounds who knocked him down first. His 2nd biggest knockout was stopped by the police after the first knockdown.Theres no one elite in the past century I'd pick him to beat. Much less George Foreman. Whose the best 1930s HW he beats? Can he beat Mickey Walker whose a pure MW?



In his own era theres 9 guys I'm picking to beat Sullivan. Jackson, Fitz, Goddard, Slavin, McAuliffe, Killen, Cardiff, Godfrey, Lambert. 8 of whom he didn't fight. Cutoff was 5 years older otherwise I'd add Maher, Denver Ed Smith and Lannon.

 

Johnson by all accounts battered Hart, by almost every account it was a heinous robbery and those who tried justifying his victory did so by crying that he was the one going forward, Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading, but got countered at will and frequently,

"Marvin Hart was awarded the decision over Jack Johnson in a twenty-round contest last night that went the limit, but he came far from demonstrating that he is qualified to meet Jim Jeffries. Hart was game and kept boring into the big colored man all through the fight. Johnson's much-vaunted cleverness did not count for much. While he was able to hit Hart frequently, his blows did not seem to damage the white man from Kentucky. The sympathies of the large crowd were openly with Hart, who was at the short end in the betting, and every lead he made at Johnson, whether he landed or not, was greeted with cheers. Hart managed to deal the only effective blow in the eleventh round, when he landed a right swing on Johnson's jaw that staggered the black man and nearly knocked him over. Referee Greggains stated that he gave the decision to Hart, because all through the fight Hart did all the forcing and leading. According to Greggains, if Hart had not pursued his tactics there would have been no fight, as Johnson merely contented himself with countering. Hart's face was battered to a pulp, but Johnson's blows did not seem to have much sting to them. Johnson did a great deal of uppercutting, but Hart covered up and the blows did not seem to hurt him." (Washington Post)

Hart did seem like a decent middleweight-light heavyweight but nothing I've seen, from reputable accounts nor from resume, suggests greatness. He got stopped by Gardner, and outweighed Root by over 20 pounds. Nothing I've seen suggests he was regarded as a great fighter with regard to ability by his contemporaries either; Hart and Sullivan were largely assessed by the same sportswriters, experts, and fighters. The same applies for Lang except far more-so, as he was pretty much a journeyman not comparable to Sullivan with regard to power, speed or skill. Choynski was called the hardest puncher by Corbett, Fitz, Johnson and Jeffries. He sparred with an old fat Sullivan multiple times and Joe felt he had just a tenth of the power that John L. did, and that Sullivan would beat Jackson (who Choynski also sparred), Goddard (who Choynski fought twice), and Slavin without too much trouble. Choynski also felt that he would've beaten Goddard easily if he had Sullivan's speed and power. Lang took 9 rounds to knock out an ancient Fitz, he is not comparable to someone that arguably has more power than the man Johnson, Fitz, Corbett and Jeffries (all on different planets with regard to class than Burns, Hart or Lang) labelled as the hardest puncher they'd fought.

I think that a prime Sullivan likely beats everyone in his era in spite of his poor resume, the Mitchell knockdown is largely an afterthought as Sullivan was up within one second and it likely had more to do with balance and momentum than any chin issues. Besides, Sullivan took plenty of leather from Mitchell in their rematch without being in trouble. Frank Herald was an underrated puncher and Sullivan got hit clean by plenty of descriptions but recovered quickly. Killen was shook of Sullivan and Cardiff, by his own admission, was scared to initiate any offense in his fight against Sullivan due to how hard Sullivan's right hand felt.

When Sullivan toured Australia in late 1891 he impressed intelligent observers in the country that had relentlessly criticized him for drawing the colour line, but still forced a lot of them to come to the conclusion that he was a special talent and that Jackson, Slavin and Goddard would likely lose to him. This was the case for most observers, trainers and fighters who saw Sullivan as well as the Australian talent pool.

Sure, prime Sullivan's talent pool was scarce but it wasn't non-existent. He would often hold his own in the scientific and speed departments against the technically proficient smaller men he faced like Mitchell and Donovan. Kilrain avoided every hand-to-hand exchange possible in their fight, and was even outclassed in an 'exhibition' against Sullivan sometime before 1885. It's very clear Sullivan had insane levels of talent, in fact sometimes the most talented fighters in a division have poor resumes like Bowe or Vitali. His combination of speed, science and power just seem like overwhelming variables for the vast majority of the names you've listed.

 

That doesn't sound like a robbery to me. It sounds like neither guy was ever in trouble and each round went to who did more. I'm not sure If I've read a round breakdown or not could be confusing it for something else I don't have a score recorded in my "HW decisions" file but in a fight where no ones in danger wouldn't activity be the right way to score that? Either way if its a decision you could score for either one the point was more the level Hart was on. Hart could survive 20 with Jack Johnson without being in danger and outwork him.


Like Johnson I think Root and Gardner were better than Hart as was Schreck. Root despite losing had more potential as a HW but Hart beat him fair and square. I'm not arguing Hart against his contemparies but he was their peer at both LHW and HW. This is one of those times where the best LHWs were the best HWs. Its probably why the division stopped existing for awhile.

Lang was the most accomplished Australian HW of the 20th century. Lang was only truly lost against the very best versions of Langford and McVea and Johnson. Langfords win over Lang is probably the best he looked his whole career and hes in the P4P GOAT discussion. Lang took DQs in fights he would have won against Curran and Storbeck. Lost a 6 round decision to Kaufman 4-2. He was not a journyman. He was fighting the best in the world Johnson, Tommy Burnsx2, old Fitz, Kaufman, Langford, McVea. Old Fitz, Pelkey, Mike Williams, Squiresx2, Lesterx1.5, Cripps, Curranx2, Felixx2, Jim Griffinx2, Klingx2, Bill Smith, Ed Williams is a legendary resume for Australian and Commonwealth boxing more generally.

Lang had more knockdown power than knockout power and it was mainly notable because it was a small era and he had more power than most except Langford. All of this applys to Sullivan too just 20 years earlier. Langs skills were limited but looking limited against peak Sam Langford, Johnson, McVea, Burns and Dave Smith doesn't mean he isn't better than someone who avoided that competition and built up a reputation as a legend in a small pond. Something that Lang was doing in his neck of the woods and would have kept doing until Dave Smith came along if he didn't challenge himself.


Sullivan took 75 rounds(or whatever the conversion is) to knockout Kilrain. Against good competition Sullivan would have been stalking for the knockout just like Lang. Shannon Briggs couldn't knock out old George Foreman. Jack Johnson and Jeffries were the only ones to KO Fitz quicker at HW.

I agree with the last point on resume. This is totally different. Bowe and Vitali are 6 inches taller than Sullivan and don't have a legendary reputation based on a handful of fights against small opponents in the first decade of the sport. Their greatness is largely hypothetical especially Bowe because on paper they should be able to beat anyone. Theres nothing that suggests Sullivan Also Vitalis competition was god awful for a champion post retirement. I'm not a "Vitali was better than Wlad" person. I get what you mean with Bowe though.

My issue with Sullivan is less his SOS in 1885 and more the fact he got 7 years out of that and thats all she wrote. In 1885 he was either the best or very close to it. He had no resume but who did? Bt the later 1880s this was no longer the case and Sullivan was a folk legend. And yes Herald is his 3rd best gloved opponent for sure. Stopping the fight in the 2nd round because Sullivan got the knockdown first softens it but as a name it'd be an acceptable title defense. Would you happen to know how many rounds that fight was scheduled for originally? I can't find it anywhere.

 

That's the thing, Johnson pretty much did more in every exchange they had. It was one of the prime examples of racially biased decisions at the time especially due to how one-sided the fight was apart from the fact that Hart just kept on coming. Sounds like shades of Holmes-Cobb to me, it just seems like there was no scenario where Johnson was ever leaving the Hart fight with a victory no matter his performance.

This is an excerpt from an author that saw the fight who felt that Hart deserved to win, but only because his understanding was that the only scoring criteria was aggression; effective or otherwise.

Hart Gets Decision in the Twentieth Round, San Francisco Chronicle, March 29, 1905

PLENTY OF RACE PREJUDICE

In all this enthusiasm there was doubtless a great deal of racial prejudice. There was also admiration for the under dog in the fight—for the short-ender. Throughout the entire battle the spirit was manifest. Johnson’s clean hitting, his cleverness at blocking and his work all through was allowed to pass with scarcely a murmur, while every blow landed by the white man was cheered to the echo. This blinded the judgment of many, beyond a doubt. But even then, casting aside all favoritism, a big majority of the people present felt that Hart had won and was justly entitled to the decision. The minority cursed their luck and said under their breaths: “Robbery.’

Few decisions have been given in the history of pugilism that have not had their dissenters. Those who did not agree with Greggains last night based their argument on the assertion that Johnson had shown pronounced superiority over Hart at all stages: that, if there was nothing else, his clean hitting should have entitled him to the verdict. The Hart faction answered this with the statement that Hart had forced the fighting all the way, and that if he had not done this there would have been no fighting to speak of.

JACK FAR THE CLEVERER

...Last night Marvin Hart rushed him all the time, kept lunging at him, kept on top of him all of the time, and Johnson was forced to retaliate. When he did retaliate it was much to Hart’s discomfort, for the black man had everything in the way of cleverness, and the white man had little or nothing beyond his indomitable grit and his infinite willingness.

To put the thing briefly the way it appeared to a man who had no interest on way or the other—only a desire to see fair play and to have the better fighter win—on the score of aggressiveness Hart was entitled to the verdict. On any other score Johnson should have been the favored one. This is a thing that will be argued on the street corner for days.
...
HART SAYS HE IS NOT HURT.

Hart showed no distress after the fight, in spite of the fact that his face was very much warped on the left side....

Sporting News, Topeka State Journal March 31, 1905

Referee Greggains’ ***** Decision in Hart-Johnson Bout.

‘Frisco Presents Another Fiasco in Marvin’s “Victory.”

NEGRO BETTER BOXER

The Crowd Was Solidly With the Paleface.

…

San Francisco has sustained its reputation as the place of weird prize fights, ***** decisions and a fleeced public. Jack Johnson, a big colored fighter, lost to Harvin Hart, a crude but game fighter, through the decision of Alex. Greggains.

Johnson, according to a study of the contest which continued the scheduled limit of twenty rounds, hit the clean, business-like blows, was unpunished and acted as do all the big champions—he realized what a world there was at stake. Hart, on the other hand, staggered through the long bout, punished so that he resembled the wall of an abattoir.

Johnson, on account of his color, had few friends in the partisan crowd. He has as little chance in the award of the verdict as did Battling Nelson in his recent battle with ‘Native Son’ Britt. “Short-ender” in the betting, Hart had all the sympathy. He needed it and something more to win. But what he needed he got—also the money. If there was a conspiracy to make Hart a widely advertised chopping block for Champion James J. Jeffries, it worked to a successful issue. Johnson could not get a battle with the champion—Jeffries announced officially yesterday he would retire permanently form the ring before he would take on Johnson.

…

Hart’s work was distinguished by its lack of efficiency. Hart’s face was battered to a pulp, as the ringside critics always say. Yet the same critics write that Johnson could not or would not land telling blows. When they want to establish a buttress for a San Francisco referee’s weird decision out in ‘Frisco, they always blame the man who lost.

To make it look as if he had done the right thing, the referee said that he gave his decision to Hart because he did all the forcing and leading. Had he not worked that way, Hart would not have had a fight, the referee says, as Johnson contended himself with countering.

For a pugilist who only countered, Johnson used some remarkable will power in ordering his opponent to be beaten to a bruised and bleeding mass.

…No one is so blind as a referee who will not see.

Hart's performance against Johnson says wonders about his durability, persistence and toughness, but not much else about overall ability outside of that, especially against high level opponents.

You have presented solid evidence that suggests Lang wasn't a mere journeyman, but I still don't find him impressive from resume or film, nor have I seen anyone of note hold him in high regard. Lang was being outclassed by Fitzsimmons for the duration of their fight until Lang landed. I wouldn't consider his victories to be above, say, a Herbert Slade or a Pete McCoy. The Australian talent pool in 1900s just wasn't what it was in the 1880s-90s, even if he did clear the majority of them. He still lost every significant fight of his career and looked clueless in most of the footage we have of him, this isn't exactly comparable to Sullivan who was regularly being compared to in favourable manner to Jackson, Slavin and Goddard by educated observers as well as fighters and trainers.

 

Sullivan was only a stalker in the LPR rules, under Queensbury he was a rusher and had a very well regarded skillset with regard to how he rushed, forcing his opponents to make mistakes and time them as a result. Kilrain basically stopped exchanging with Sullivan with his hands after the early rounds and was reduced to merely running around the ring. It became a war of attrition like most LPR fights, Sullivan merely walked him down and seemed to do so on purpose in order to maintain stamina and prove he could finish someone over a long distance as his reputation was as a 4 round fighter,

“Sullivan proved cunning, and until he had found his opponent so completely worn out as to be unable to administer a dangerous blow he never afforded him an opportunity of landing one….John L. Sullivan has proved himself a marvellously scientific boxer.” Times Democrat

Muldoon after the fight;

"I have always been anxious to prove to the public that he is a natural born fighter and could fight a long scientific battle if necessary."

This is also probably the only time Sullivan tested himself against someone his own size at the elite level. Kilrain was no doubt top 5 in the world at this point and was still a well regarded hand-to-hand technician. He also beat Godfrey twice, who beat Denver Ed, who in turn stopped Goddard. Kilrain wanted absolutely nothing to do with a past prime Sullivan's hands, which is why he pretty much pursued a grappling match mixed in with sprinting around the ring.

What's also important to note is that the best technicians in the late LPR era were largely viewed upon as scientific masters by fighters in more developed eras even with the gloves, like Mike Donovan who played a big role in training Corbett, Fitz, and Sullivan and was regarded by Corbett as one of the finest technical boxers he'd ever seen, as well as Jem Mace and Larry Foley who helped develop the significant Australian talent pool throughout the 1880s. Sullivan would not only obliterate the esteemed little men of the time in Donovan, Goss, Mitchell but he would also at times be able to compete with them in the scientific department as well as the speed department. Sullivan’s combination of all intangibles that a great heavyweight requires are a big reason as to why he’s so highly regarded. Cardiff went 14 rounds with a murderous puncher like Killen yet did not want to advance against Sullivan at all in their fight even though Sullivan did basically nothing, solely due to how hard he punched. Choynski was arguably the hardest puncher of his generation yet thought he wasn’t a pimple on Sullivan’s ass with regard to power and overall ability.

That’s what’s largely common between Sullivan and someone like Bowe, Vitali or even Tyson to some lesser extent; the talent is clearly there and is recognized by every intelligent or reputable observer out there, even ones that openly despise you. In the case of Sullivan, your talent is recognized by technicians who would live well into the gloved era like Choynski, Jack McAuliffe, Mike Donovan. The only thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is their poor opposition in comparison to the greats, but to many this doesn’t affect the H2H standing of someone like Tyson, or Vitali, or Bowe. They, like Sullivan, just have all the intangibles to give anyone hell.

The Herald-Sullivan fight was a scheduled 6-rounder, but the reports varied on how many times Herald went down. The Pittsburgh Dispatch post-fight said that Herald was countered by a right and left that dropped him. After rising, Sullivan sent him on his back again. Herald got up again, then the police stopped it.

 

Sullivan would have annihilated Foreman, it would be a no-contest. Too fast and too hard hitting, if Ron Lyle was so close to knocking Foreman out, I don't see him lasting long against Sullivan.

 

Well in Queensbury he's only got Mitchell, McCaffrey and Herald. I don't recognize LPR fights I'm going off that because Kilrain is the best fighter Sullivan beat. I do think everyone from the mid 1880s was a lower end elite by the late 1880s. Kilrain, Godfrey, Cardiff were still really good but they were a step behind the best fighters in the division. McCaffrey and Mitchell were lower still. Herald wasn't around anymore.




I do think Choynski would be behind Fitz, Goddard, Slavin, McAuliffe and Killen in terms of power. Not that he couldn't hit hard.


Sullivans lack of opposition is on a different level than Tyson or Bowe and Vitali resume issues are fundamentally different. Tysons criticism is more based on him losing to Lewis and Holyfield. But Tyson fought pretty much everyone in the 80s he needed to fight except Witherspoon. Bowes still got 9 wins over title contenders not counting the Golota wins. Even Vitalis got like 5 wins over real contenders. Sullivans only got a few real wins.

Bowe and Vitali in particular also benefit from the "eye test" you've got 2 of the best superheavyweights here and they are hard to pick against H2H even if they didn't prove that much because like you said "the talent is clearly there". Cleveland Williams is another one. Sullivan is not getting forgiven because of the eye test. At least not today.


Thanks I don't have the scheduled rounds for a lot of these old fights. Killen v Lannon and Fitzsimmons v Maher are other ones if you happen to know. But yeah I thought the reason the fight was stopped is because Sullivan scored the knockdown.

 

A 5'11' 190 pound Sullivan is going straight at Geroge Foreman? I've seen that movie before,,,,Sullivan goes out in about 2 minutes.

 

You have a strong case that in terms of legacy, Sullivan is the greater fighter than Foreman. However with zero footage of Sullivan, it’s hard to even take too seriously that he would be able to overcome the height, weight and reach disparity Foreman possesses over him. Especially as a come forward attacker.

 

Sullivan looks at George and says sorry George, but I only fight people with the perfect tan.

This content is protected

 

I don't think it's fair to completely disregard the results on London Prize Ring matches. Kilrain was very much a capable, skilled technical boxer under both rulesets yet avoided hand-to-hand exchanges from Sullivan like the plague. Cardiff was brave enough to push the pace and batter a murderous puncher like Killen toward the end of their first encounter and went 14 rounds with him overall in two fights, yet only one round of fighting Sullivan before his arm injury was needed for Patsy to completely avoid leading and exchanging all-together, despite there clearly being something wrong with Sullivan;

"I knew the left was gone, but I thought a good deal of my jaw when he began poking that right at me, and am well satisfied I got off so easily." - Patsy Cardiff, San Francisco Examiner December 28, 1891

"Cardiff was very clever, but lacked nerve. He did nothing but clinch, clinch....He was a good runner and sprinted all throughout the bout." - Mike Donovan

I feel like Cardiff and Kilrain would be in a top 10 had there been one in the late 1880s as would Godfrey, Mitchell, Burke, you can argue Sullivan got the better of two fighters you'd consider contenders. The Cardiff fight was a draw but it seems like it makes Sullivan more impressive due to reducing Cardiff's output to nothing without doing much himself and being one-handed. This at the very least suggests Sullivan is on similar, or greater, grounds than Killen as a puncher. I don't see the case for seeing Choynski on lesser grounds as a puncher than Fitz, McAuliffe, Goddard or Killen considering almost everyone from that era called Choynski the hardest puncher they'd faced.

“To this day, I can’t figure out how a runt like him could hurt so damned bad,” declared Jeffries some years later. “During our scrap, he clipped me with a right that landed high on my cheekbone. I figured my whole face was caved in, and when I tried to feel what was left with my hands, there wasn’t any sensation at all. That was the hardest punch I ever took and had it landed a little lower I would have been knocked out for the first time in my life.”

“Little Joe was the hardest hitter I ever tangled with,” -Corbett.

"Choynski and I never hit it off well together as friends, but he was the most devastating puncher I ever faced. The man was remarkable in every sense of the word.” -Fitzsimmons

Johnson on the hardest hitter he faced:

"Jeffries No. 1? No, sir. Give me Joe Choynski anytime. I faced both and should know. Jefferies had a powerful wallop, but Choynski had a paralyzing punch. His left hand was a corker. He was the hardest puncher in the last 50 years, with Joe Walcott a close second. I think his left hook was even more effective than either Dempseys."

Choynski's assessment of Sullivan's punching abilities, as well as Cardiff's hesitancy to mount any offense, speaks levels of Sullivan's power. At the very least; Choynski is on par with Fitz, Goddard, McAuliffe and Slavin. I'd argue he has a very good chance of being a harder hitter as well; Johnson, Fitz, Corbett and Jeffries all faced much physically bigger punchers than Joe yet still came to the same conclusion on who hit hardest.

Sure, we don't have the eye test to assess Sullivan as accurately as we would Tyson, Bowe or Vitali, but what we do have are interpretations of fighters who pass either pass the eye test, or were regarded highly\inspired by those that past the eye test. Mike Donovan, Billy Edwards and Jack McAuliffe for example had a massive role in the development of the later eras. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone that saw\sparred both Goddard, Slavin and Sullivan and also thought that the first two would defeat the latter. Even those that thought Jackson would beat Sullivan felt like Sullivan was in a different class to Jackson's opponents that were punchers.