John Sullivan In The Modern Era

I think that most people would agree that Adam's second biography of Sullivan, is the definitive work on the subject. His views on the subject should obviously be listened to, even it you don't necessarily agree with them. Here is his take on Sullivan's skill set:

"He knew how to feint, get into range, duck and slip punches, block, and land effective knockout blows to the body and head. He was very quick, able to throw blazing combinations, and set a fast pace. He had fast feet and could rush in with explosive speed. Her had great accuracy, knowing how to find and create openings. He also proved that he could exhibit endurance and poise. The fact is that if Sullivan did not have defense and an iron chin, he simply could not have done as well as he did for as long as he did given that his opponents were firing punches at him with gloves weighing 2-5 ounces, and sometimes no gloves at all. Bear in mind also that Sullivan was fighting and sparring almost daily and nightly for months on end. Without defense his face could not have emerged unscathed."

 

Again, the thing that is always overlooked about this era is that the few standouts, like Sullivan, Corbett, etc. had TONS more experience and access to training than the vast majority of not just men they were fighting but their contemporaries in general. Waxing poetic about their feinting, defense, etc has to take into account who they are accomplishing those feats against. If you take a guy who has very little experience beyond street fighting or simply being a strong man and match him against a guy with a moderate amount of training the gap in skill will be noticeable and accentuated. Likewise pluck a guy like Sullivan from the infancy of the sport where the level of competition is very low and place him in the modern era where professionals are exactly that: Professional full time fighters with the benefit of 140 years of training and technical polish and suddenly you can understand why Corbett and Fitz look amateurish in films of them.

 

Ouch. Dad bod.

I do agree that pre Peter Jackson,Sullivan was the best around for a while.

I disagree a bit if you think that he could not compete as a light heavy or cruiser weight today.

 

I would have to disagree with your assertion that the men that Sullivan was fighting were not professionals.

The amount of investment of effort, involved in being the best fighter in the world, has been pretty consistent from the early 1800s onward.

I do not think that Sullivan was dominating a particularly strong era, and I have given a detailed justification of this position in the past, but even in a weak era, the best contenders should be able to put up some sort of challenge to the champion.

I don't know whether men like Ryan, Wilson, or Elliot would have been contenders in a later gloved era, or even whether they would have been particularly successful in a stronger bare knuckle era.

Elliot at least I would give a good chance of being successful in an early gloved era.

I do think that men like Mitchell, Greenfield, Burke, McCaffrey, and Killrain would have been contenders in Jeffries era for example.

I think that Sullivan was a much more dangerous finisher than Jeffries, and I think that he could have been very successful against Jeffries opposition.

 

I’d take out the exhibition matches, on tour matches, and wager matches if joe local can last 3 round fights. Adam might be counting These as title matches.

How long a title defense needs to be scheduled for is debatable. I’d say at least 10 rounds is fair for any era. 1-6 rounds scheduled is more of a billing than “ official title match “

Can you post all 33 matches here for review? I might actually agree with some of them.

 

When evaluating a boxer we have never seen, who was active 130+ years ago - shouldn't we be careful, how we interpret the written word of the time?

Back then journalists were reporting on fights that no one, except those present, had seen… or would ever see! What's more, the vast majority of their readers had probably never seen a prize fight... so I don't think it's unfair to say, that these early fights sometimes may have been sensationalized, to capture the reader's interest.

When reporters of that time talked about "fast feet", "blazing combinations", "explosive speed", "great accuracy", etc... were they describing something that we today associate with those words? Or were they watching something completely different?

 

Adam states in both of his biographies that Sullivan defended the title 33 times.

He does not specifically state what they are, but I think that I can extrapolate them from his interpretation of Sullivan's record.

Presumably he counts any match where the title would have changed hands if Sullivan had lost, even though many of them had to be billed as exhibitions for legal purposes.

For example in the Patsy Cardiff fight, it is very clear that Cardiff would have been recognized as the champion had he won.

The stipulation that the bout has to be of at least ten rounds is not reasonable, because the laws of nearly every state precluded bouts of this length.

The only way that the title could be contested, was to hold an exhibition of say six rounds, with an agreement that the winner would be recognized as champion, and that if the police intervened it would be taken as a sort of technical knockout.

 

I’d take out the exhibition matches, on tour matches, and wager matches if joe local can last 3 round fights. Adam might be counting These as title matches.

How long a title defense needs to be scheduled for is debatable. I’d say at least 10 rounds is fair for any era. 1-6 rounds scheduled is more of a billing than “ official title match “

Can you post all 33 matches here for review? I might actually agree with some of them.

Adam, who is a good writer and historian could have listed the names, dates, and places of these " 33 " title defenses. He took a few liberties here, and without the data backing it up is at risk looking questionable on this claim. Few historians recognize what he said.

Some of the title defenses he refers to might be legitimate. I guess if the laws say you could only go six rounds, and it the police entered the ring, its a TKO, okay, then for Sullivan's timeline 6 rounds can be considered a title defense.

 

There is simply no disputing that the sport was in its infancy and that what we call a professional fighter today was exceedingly rare in that era. That alone means that the level of competition necessary to uplift the sport simply wasnt there. To say nothing of the lack of trainers etc. Its not even disputable. When you take a guy like a Sullivan or a Corbett who made their money almost exclusively from fighting meaning they could devote all of their time to it. That alone is going to elevate them significantly above the average opponent they were facing. People have gone on for years about how their opposition looks so weak because we dont have good records on them. I disagree. Even if we were missing five or ten fights on the record of each opponent youd still have men who were largely inexperienced. The idea that these men were professional, well trained fighters, and yet a ton of their supposed fights just fell off the face of the earth simply doesnt jive with reality. If they were big names and had important fights we would know about it. Look at the records of guys like Sullivan, Corbett, and Fitz and you see a lot of opponents with next to no experience. And this is to be expected. The sport was just getting started as we know it today. The participants were much much much more often casual participants than the men like Corbett, Fitz, and Sullivan who literally made it their career. Again, this puts the stars of the sport at a huge advantage over most of their opponents in that era. Its like Roy Jones fighting part time fighter Ricky Frazier. When you say Sullivan wasnt dominating a strong era it sounds like you are comparing it to the weak era Marciano or Patterson lorded over. But it wasnt like that at all. It wasnt like there was this ebb and flow in Sullivans era. There simply wasnt enough talent, competition, trainers, or professional fighters in that era or the eras prior to say that it was akin to later weaker eras. If you compared the amount of trainers, fights, professional fighters, etc to later eras youd find the statistics anemic in Sullivan's era.

 

Excellent points!

 

I really can't see how anyone could argue with this spot on the money post !

 

This is the best that I can manage, starting from when he beat Paddy Ryan the first time. I have taken Adam's compilation of his record, and excluded events that he lists as exhibitions. It still only gives me 32, so I must have missed something, unless he is counting the Corbett fight where Sullivan lost his title:

John McDermot KO3
Jimmy Elliot KO3
Tug Wilson D
Henry Higgiuns KO3
S P Stockton KO2
Charlie O'Donnell KO1
P J Rentzler KO1
Herbert Slade KO3
James McCoy KO1
Jim Miles KO1
Morris Haffey KO1
Mike Sheehan KO1
Fred Robinson KO2
Sylvester La Gouriff KO1
James Lang KO1
George Robinson WDQ4
Al Marx KO1
Dan Henry KO1
William Fleming KO1
Enos Philips KO1
John Laflin KO1
Alf Greenfield W2
Alf Greenfield W4
Paddy Ryan NC1
Jack Burke W5
Dominic McCaffrey W7
Frank Herald W2
Paddy Ryan KO3
Patsy Cardiff D6
William Samuel's KO3
Charlie Mitchell D39
Jake Killrain W75

 

Hold my beer!

 

Sullivan's era was not an era when the sport was in its infancy, it was an era when the sport was in transition. Boxing was a huge sport for most of the 19th century, with some bouts getting more column inches than the Battle of Trafalgar, and guest houses being sold out for a forty mile radius ahead of major bouts, and people sleeping in ditches to attend them. After prize fighting was stamped out in the UK, a lot of the top fighters moved to the USA, so while the sport was in a state of transition, there was still some depth to it.

As for your statements regarding their records I must respectfully disagree. It is quite possible that these men had dozens of unrecorded fights, and more recent history provides us some examples of this. Flyweight records for the 1920 have almost completely been wiped out, with some fighters holding the British Title on the date of their pro debut! Jeff Clarke was one of the best pound for pound fighters of his era, and about half of his current record on Boxrec, was missing ten years ago.

You could make the argument that many of these fighters had other jobs to support themselves, but was that really so uncommon in the 1930s say? The potential rewards for a fighter who made a breakthrough in boxing were enormous, and this would surely be reflected in the talent pool, and the level of organisation of those pursuing the prize.

 

Interesting reply.

I mostly side with Klompton's points here, but you did come back with something to consider.

And now that I have Klompton's attention, I'd like to hear his thoughts on why many in the 1920s considered Greb's style amateurish? Maybe Greb was more like the fighters of old who Klompton thinks look amateurish too old grainly film that does run at the correct speed? It's plausible.

On one hand, he's saying Sullivans time were not really organized and skilled prizefighters ( Which I tend to agree with ), yet a generation later, they said Greb, who like Sullivan has no ring film was amateurish too. Is the pot calling the kettle black here, or am I missing something on this topic as being described as amateurish to me indicates a lack of fundamentals?

Maybe Sullivan had other attributes besides fundamentals in his time that made him great ( quick feet and hand speed, with wild swinging punches that were accurate and plenty of stamina ) ?