John L Sullivan Vs "Sailor" Tom Sharkey

At some of these sessions at least, Sullivan grabbed the microphone and praised sharkey as the future of the division, pointing out that he was old, retired and finished. The goal of these were in fact the opposite, to have Sharkey look good. At least in some of the Sharkey Sullivan exhibitions it was.

 

Just because a somebody is the best defensive fighter of their time period, does not mean that they had the greatest influence on boxing technique.

Many great defensive fighters are evolutionary dead ends, successful in their own right, but not widely imitated.

I would put Corbett in this category personally.

I could produce examples to the contrary.

 

That would be my take on it too.

 

I think this is a valid point

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I could just about accept Corbett as a contemporary opinion, but not Burns

Looking at Corbett's, list I don't think that Mitchel is doing too badly. Most of the people ranked above him are lineal champions, or all time standouts among non lineal champions. Now while Mitchell was one of the better contenders of Sullivan's era, he was by no means a standout among them. If you can have him on the list, then by definition you could have several other Sullivan victims on the list.

I will give you another opinion from Jeff Thompson writing in 1908:

"I saw Sullivan in practically all of his fights from the time he put Steve Taylor out at Harry Hills and fought one of the greatest fights with John Flood that I ever saw, up to the time that the wreck of Sullivan was put out by Jim Corbett, and I have seen pretty much all the good ones in action since. Sullivan was a natural fighter; he could hit the hardest blow of any man I ever saw, and before he was wrecked by drink, I do not believe there was a man that ever lived who could have beaten him. The idea that he could not land on a clever man is nonsense. They do not grow any cleverer men with their hands and feet than Charley Mitchell was when he met Sullivan first, and Sullivan got to him all right and fought him to a standstill with a punch."

 

Janitor,

I asked for Sullivan opponents that he defeated that could be viewed as a top guy a decade or two later. Charlie Mitchell is the only one historian / writer though was good enough to rate in his top 20, not even top 15. With the amount of fights Sullivan had, the quality of who he beat in my eyes remains thin.

Mitchell was so clever he lasted three rounds vs Corbett.

He also drew many times, and lost to McCaffery.

What Thompson is saying doesn't give any depth to who Sullivan beat. If there were more clever men like Mitchell, it reasons to believe he would have listed them.

 

The very fact of having Mitchell on the list, makes it reasonable to put other men on the list by default.

For example if Mitchell lost to McCaffrey, and drew against other men, then you could just as easily have them on the list!

You know that Mitchell was done when Corbett beat him, and trying to use this fight as evidence that he was not very good in his prime, is highly disingenuous.

 

Janitor,
I asked for Sullivan opponents that he defeated that could be viewed as a top guy a decade or two later. Charlie Mitchell is the only one historian / writer though was good enough to rate in his top 20, not even top 15. With the amount of fights Sullivan had, the quality of who he beat in my eyes remains thin.

Mitchell was so clever he lasted three rounds vs Corbett.

He also drew many times, and lost to McCaffery.

What Thompson is saying doesn't give any depth to who Sullivan beat. If there were more clever men like Mitchell, it reasons to believe he would have listed them.

They why didn't Thompson list other men? It would have greatly helped his case.

I keep asking for the historical backdrop of those who saw, and not one of Sullivan's opponent that he beat rated in anyone's top 15 by 1916-1920. Mitchell was Sullivan's best win, and he floored him.

Mitchell very dangerous you say? You could be right, outside the ring he was a criminal, but Mitchell was anything but dangerous in the ring. Proof? Mitchell had but 9 ko's in 49 listed fights. A KO% of just 18%. Hardly perilous Janitor. The correct observation here is a middleweight without a punch, who likely hit below his weight class.

Unless Mitchel's punch resistance at age 32 suddenly went south, ( Not buying that ), you have to question his chin as Corbett had him down multiple times. Mitchell was hardly rusty or old for this fight, Janitor. He had 14 fights from 1885-1893 without a loss, meeting quality men of the times in Slavin, Hall, and Burke. So no, he was not shot at all. Corbett was just bigger and in a different class skill wise.

Mitchell was a small man, without a punch, and judging how easily Corbett blew him away, has a questionable chin vs. anyone over 180 pounds. Was he scrappy, quick, and skilled for his time? I'll say yes, but let's not make him out to be something he wasn't.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected