John L Sullivan Vs "Sailor" Tom Sharkey

Let's review things. You would not exchange emails. I wanted something on record. I said a pick ring, as boxing is allowed there. Hence when you fell, I would not be arrested. You could not seem to do it.

Furthermore, you disappeared for three months and came back out of nowhere after I departed and picked an airport in a lame attempt to save face. The airport, oh sure people want trouble there. It was your way of getting out of things. Oh, now I see your son in law is security at the airport! You're so busted...

Then you said you had surgery when I asked where you were for three months. I say it was for a new pair of balls and spine. You never said what it was that kept you away from the board for three months! I'll ask one more time why you disappeared here? You'll die a lair and a coward. That much I'm sure of. The rest is not for me to judge.

 

From the report I'm guessing Sharkey was taking it easy on Sullivan why would be be so much slower then usual.

 

For openers, its clear Sharkey fought much better men. We agree there. I say he also beat better men. You reply there is?

Which big puncher did Sullivan face with gloves? You tell me.

Sullivan fought mostly smaller men, most of whom could not hit hard, some of whom were much older than he was. So we don't know how good Sullivan's chin was.

Sullivan was floored by Charlie Mitchell, the best man he fought and Mitchell's KO% is very poor.

I'm not sure if Tom Sharkey had the better chin. I did not say that. Please re-read what I said. I am sure Sharkey's chin was more proven vs. gloved punchers, and I think you can agree to that. Choysnki, Jeffries, McCoy...good punchers could not stop Sharkey. If forced to guess, most would take more proven over an unknown.

Are you sure Sullivan could take it from them? Unkown. Would he be TKO'd / KO'd at least once if he was hit the same amount of times Sharkey was vs. the same men? Debatable.

As for the guys Sullivan fought in the mid-1880's, heck yes Tom Sharkey puts them away. Sullivan had to settle for too many points wins and draws in the mid to late 1880's.

 

Joe Grim fought better men than many champion's.

It doesn't give him an argument for being better than them!

If you get your knowledge of the era from Boxrec, and other secondary sources, then you are always going to be splashing around in the shallow end of the debate!

You should already know which big puncher's Sullivan faced!

See the above observation!

Sharkey got iced repeatedly!

Choynski used to spar with Sullivan in the 1890s, and the ageing Sullivan had to take it easy on him.

Choynski later said that Sullivan had faster hands than him, and hit harder!

Let that sink in!

You seem to remember everything, but learn nothing!

You clearly know nothing about the fight regulation's of the era.

Sharkey had enough trouble with the second raters of his own era!

 

.

You want to review it?
Okay.When you said you were coming to the UK I sent you 2 pms and I made 2 public threads, in each of these I asked you for details of your flight time and arrival and I said I would meet you at the airport and settle things there and then.The day I made the second public thread and pm'd you for the second time you were on this forum posting you did not reply to my pm's nor did you respond to my public threads which since they were headed FAO MENDOZA,you could not fail to see.
The next we heard from you was when you were safely back in the US telling us how the Uk was just "okay and average". The bottom line is you challenged me to a fight I accepted, then when you realised you would be in the same country as me and that I lived inside an hour from both Heathrow and Gatwick airports ,and that I was serious about taking you up on your hot air challenge issued from the safety of the other side of the Atlantic,your rectum fell out. When you resurfaced on here I called you out for ducking me and you said, in an involuntary admission that you had seen my posts and read my PMs,"who wants trouble at an airport?"This proved you knew I wanted to meet you and that you ducked the meet.Furthermore while you were in the Uk why didn't you contact me on this forum?
I would have driven to meet you.I did not dissapear for 3 months I stopped posting for 6 weeks while I recuperated from an operation , the medical details of which are none of your ****ing business. Two years ago I travelled to New York I told you in an open post where I was staying and for how long and said I was happy to meet on upper 44th street Manhattan and we could have a settler there behind Jimmy's Corner Bar.You begged off saying it was too far to travel. That is the extent of your "challenge".
On e mails, you once asked me for my e mail address and this was sometime before we had our falling out,I remember the request and why you wanted it ,it was to send me some info on Joe Choynski ,and had absolutely nothing to do with our later quarrel.I told you I wasn't comfortable giving my e mail to you and that ended the matter.
Now once again you are lying through your teeth pretending you asked for my e mail address in connection with our quarrel which was over 2 months later. Mendoza I despise you because you are a racist bigot ,a compulsive liar which has been proven many times on this forum, and a physical coward who ran away from an old man. May you rot in hell and may your arrival there not be too long delayed.

NB I am staying at the Hotel Lincoln in old Havana just a mile and a half from Jose Marti airport and less than a hundred miles from Florida where you live.I shall be there from April3rd until the 8th.You know what I look like, make the trip and make my holiday!

 

I suppose it boils down to how much confidence you have in the reports. As to Sullivan being too crude for Jeffries era Sharkey did pretty well in it and he was as crude as they come.Maher by all accounts was no Willie Pep either. The comparisons between Sullivan and Jeffries that were made by the contemporary writers seemed to all favour Sullivan,Jeffries was described as a cautious performer and not as explosive as John L.

 

Jack Johnson was quite disparaging of Sullivan,he thought Corbett had skill but considered Fitzsimmons the best man before himself.

 

END OF

 

Jack Johnson called Corbett," the father of modern boxing". Whilst in Australia Johnson sparred with Foley, before they put on the gloves Johnson said ,"I can make any man lead to me" or words to that effect.Foley who considered himself a professor on the subject of boxing angrily refuted this.When they got in the ring Foley was determined not to become the aggressor but Jack with his smile and a few choice words soon go his goat and the Australian lunged at him only to meet air and a light cuff around the head.Johnson stood back and grinned,having proved his point.

 

Corbett revolutionized nothing Janitor says? He'll stand alone on that comment.

Jim Mace might have been a baseline for the fighters after him, but it doesn't mean his technique was better than those after him.

Janitor missed the boat on pioneers of the sport. Great in their time, sure, great after their time, well outside of Sullivan himself, those who saw him fail to list his opponents among the greatest up to 1920, which means those where were there,did not think much of his opponents.

Who saw Sullivan and his opponents up to say Jack Dempsey? This man did. Alfred Craffy, so which of Sullivan's opponents did he think highly of?
Just one, who barely made the cut, and I'd argue he was a middle weight without a punch, who also floored Sullivan. I'll stand that Sullivan's competition was perhaps the weakest of at lineal champion called great.


Alfred Reed Cratty, who wrote as Jim Jab, was writing sports in Pittsburgh as far back as 1883, possibly even earlier.

1920-12-06 The Pittsburg Press (page 20)
JIM JAB PICKS TWENTY BEST IN RING SPORT
--------
By Jim Jab.

Autumn's tradition of picking all-American gridiron squads, has extended to other rugged recreations. Fistiana couldn't escape the racket. A down easterner delved in the game, finally emerging with a "Twenty Best." A score of this clan was credited to yesteryear and an equal number to modern mixing. The guesser awards Dempsey with being the "boss ever," puts Fitz seconds, Jeffries third, J. A. Johnson fourth, Sullivan fifth. If the prophet wanted to get a "rise" out of the old-timers he couldn't have planned better. Chances are that his estimate was formed mostly on hear-talk, that is the so-called symposium was culled on somebody else's say so. The writer begs leave to dissent with the selections. By way of qualification how's the following? Have "lamped" Sully in his prime; watched him in hostile settos, peeked at Peter Jackson going his best; eyed Jim Jeffries slinging hard leather, scanned Dempsey hitting his finest, gazed at Peter Maher, Frank Slavin, Ruby Fitz, J. Willard, F. Fulton, Jim Corbett; looked over glove stars for four decades.


In the writer's mind, no heavyweight in American ring history was better than Jim Jeffries, California giant. Stalwart, compact, cool and calculating, this magnificent athlete was a marvelous hitter, cruel only when cruelty was needed. The view is ventured that the annals of the mit pastime do not show Jeffries' peer. Under Tommy Ryan's tutelage Jeffries became clever to the echo. Withal this enchantment of science, there came no slackening in swatting prowess. Usually when a natural battler is taught fancy flings of fistic art he suffers in striking skill. Dempsey is classy, Sullivan was great, Fitzsimmons marvelous, Jackson way up, Johnson artful and crafty, Slavin game and gritty, Ruhlin excellent, a wonder in elbow work. In their day and generation these warriors blazed the trail with brilliant bouts. Of course they didn't score brackets in all frays. However, they were capable clashers.


EASTERN SAGE'S CHOICES.

To aid the argument let us reprint the eastern sage's ranking roster. Here goes. The up-to-date command: Jack Dempsey, No. 1; Wills, 2; Willard, 3; McVey, 4; Fulton, 5; Langford, 6; Norfolk, 7; Brennan, 8; Carpentier, 9; Moran, 10; Tate, 11; Ropper, 12; Martin, 13; Tunney, 14; Reich, 15; Weinert, 16; Madden, 17; Jim Coffey, 18; Beckett, 19; Tom Cowler, 20.


The all-time list: No. 1, Dempsey; No. 2, Fitzsimmons; No. 3, Jeffries; No. 4, Jack Johnson; No. 5, Sullivan; No. 6, Peter Jackson; No. 7, Corbett; No. 8, McCoy; No. 9, Langford; No. 10, Peter Maher; No. 12, Sharkey; No. 13, Gus Ruhlin; No. 14, Joe Choynski; No. 15, Joe Jeannette; No. 16, Luther McCarthy; No. 17, Jess Willard; No. 18, Jack Dillon; No. 19, Sam McVey; No. 20, Tommy Burns.


Now for THE PRESS revise--Today's chieftains: No. 1, Jack Dempsey; No. 2, Kid Norfolk; No. 3, Fred Fulton; No. 4, Jess Willard; No. 5, Harry Wills; No. 6, Jack Johnson; No. 7, Bill Brennan; No. 8, Sam Langford; No. 9, Charley Weinert; No. 10, Sam McVey; No. 11, Frank Moran; No. 12, Tom Gibbons; No. 13, Mike O'Dowd; No. 15, Gene Tunney; No. 16, Bill Miske; No. 17, Bob Martin; No. 18, Georges Carpentier; No. 19, Jack Thompson; No. 20, Al Reich.


Note the All American team of 40 years plus: No. 1, James J. Jeffries; No. 2, John L. Sullivan; No. 3, J. Art Johnson; No. 4, Jack Dempsey; No. 5, Bob Fitzsimmons; No. 6, Peter Jackson; No. 7, Jess Willard; No. 8, Frank Paddy Slavin; No. 9, Fred Fulton; No. 10, Gus Ruhlin; No. 11, Peter Maher; No. 12, Tom Sharkey; No. 13, Sam Langford; No. 14, Luther McCarthy; No. 15, Jim Corbett; No. 16, Charley Mitchell; No. 17, Joe Choynski; No. 18, Joe Goddard; No. 19, Sam McVey; No. 20, Joe Jeannette.


Guess this estimate will arouse favor and fuss. Jake Kilrain could be included in the also-rans. Kilrain was better than the average. How about Kid McCoy, bugs may ask? The Kid was some wonder, that's true, but more out of the arena than in it. At that he had fist talent undeniable. Jack Dillon thrived in the arena. No doubt Dillon could have gone higher had he been so minded. He got the change just the same.

 

I'm glad my honest and factually information bothers you so. Everything I said is 100% correct.

Yes, you did disappear from posting as McVey for three months, I showed those who care before. Stop lying its a fact. You knew damn well why I wanted the email exchange, to go over legalities, and it had to be a boxing ring, because if I choose to bust you up, legally I'm not in trouble. You failed to grasp that point multiple times. Why?

Oh, and medical operation you say? I smell BS. What was it? I say it was an excuse and an out. Like I said before you're so full of it, you should have flush handles for ears.

I well over a1,000 miles from NY and have no interest visiting Cuba. The hotels suck there anyway, which means you might like it. Go spend your money on a dictator's land and while you at it, research the weather, as it was not 100 degrees there in April. in the 1900's.

You only wanted the airport as an out; now I see as you claim your son in law is security there. You are a coward. Oh sure, that would work out nicely for a person on holiday visiting a foreign land. You plan was to get help from a security personal at the airport.

You remain a delusional and cancerous old man. If I were you I'd enjoy my final days and avoid being made an @ss on a public forum, but that's just me.

 

Sounds to me like maybe it was agreed that old John L would get the better of Sharkey to make for a better show. That would certainly be consistent with Sharkey appearing remarkably slow; fighters often look unaturally slow in choreographed fights. (Think of the Rocky movies, or De La Hoya's "fight" with Shaquil O'neal.)

 

That is a distinct possibility.