John Sullivan In The Modern Era

Thanks for typing this. I would not count a NC a title defense, but a draw or a DQ is.

Most of those names pre Paddy Ryan I've never heard of. How many those names are in Sullivan's confirmed record at box rec?

 

Were most of those guys even boxers?

 

1. John McDermot KO3
2. Jimmy Elliot KO3 http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/elliott.htm
3. Tug Wilson D https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/sullivan-fight-of-the-week-sullivan-wilson.603218/
4. Henry Higgins KO3
5. S P Stockton KO2
6. Charlie O'Donnell KO1
7. P J Rentzler KO1
8. Herbert Slade KO3 http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/slade.htm
9. James McCoy KO1
10. Jim Miles KO1
11. Morris Haffey KO1
12. Mike Sheehan KO1
13. Fred Robinson KO2
14. Sylvester La Gouriff KO1
15. James Lang KO1
16. George Robinson WDQ4 *
17. Al Marx KO1
18. Dan Henry KO1
19. William Fleming KO1
20. Enos Philips KO1
21. John Laflin KO1 https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/john-l-sullivan-v-professor-lafflin.603595/
22. Alf Greenfield W2
23. Alf Greenfield W4
24. Paddy Ryan NC1
25. Jack Burke W5
26. Dominic McCaffrey W7
27. Frank Herald W2 https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/sullivan-fight-of-the-week-sullivan-herald.605404/
28. Paddy Ryan KO3
29. Patsy Cardiff D6
30. William Samuel's KO3 http://www.welshboxers.com/hall-of-fame/william-samuels/
31. Charlie Mitchell D39
32. Jake Killrain W75

*John L Sullivan Vs George M Robinson
Pre-fight
Daily Alta California, Volume 36, Number 12369, 27 February 1884
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=DAC1884...en--20--1--txt-txIN-sullivan+Robinson-------1

Morning Union, Volume 34, Number 5257, 9 March 1884
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=MU18840...en--20--1--txt-txIN-sullivan+Robinson-------1

That's it to half of them, with stuff linked, or are pretty easy to find stuff on.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/janitors-sullivan-fight-of-the-week-series.603774/

 

Rentzler wasn't
Evening star. [volume], November 18, 1882, Page 8, Image 8
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/...tzler&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

 

Yeah, I think a bunch of them were probably just local strongmen and tough guys enticed by the possibility of earning a quick thousand dollars. La Gouriffe, Hefey, Sheehan, etc. Sounds like many knew nothing about boxing and/or were tiny. Borderline misleading to treat these things as legit title defenses imo.

 

How many modern boxers would have the nutsack to travel via bumpy train and wagon from town to town, mining camp to farm camp, to fight the biggest, strongest, dirtiest MF'er available with no guarantee that it will be clean or legal, with no pre-fight footage, little resource to training, and do it night after night for pay that is a pittance compared to today's renumeration? All they would have were their fists and their balls.

Again, the bigger and more challenging question is not would Sullivan do well today but could any modern day fighter last 5 minutes in the world John L inhabited. And I am inclined to say No.

 

Sounds like it would have been right up Kimbo Slice’s alley.

 

The bottom line is that we don't know.

They might have been decent fighters who never made it past local level, or they might have been local tough guys, or guys with a bit of boxing experience.

You are probably going to have to dilute the quality a bit, to get to 30+ title defenses in any era.

Looking at accounts of Sullivan's exhibitions, he seems to have taken it easy on men who were outright novices trying for the $1000, so I suspect that these men had some sort of fighting experience.

 

Why would you care?

Boxrec isn't some sort of magic validation.

 

I'd agree stuff like that shouldn't be treated as defences, but I also think you should only say that for ones where it's the case rather than just guessing, and making wild leaps

But even only counting the 15, that put him at more consecutive title defences than anyone but Wlad Louis and Holmes, and on par with Lennox Lewis for total defences.

Edit: Just noticed I messed up that post, it's actually 16, so ahead of Lennox Lewis.

 

It is a difficult area.

It appears that the title was on the line in these fights, even though many of them had to be made as exhibitions for legal purposes.

The problem then is that people like Joe Louis sometimes fought exhibitions where the title was on the line, and why don't we include them?

In Sullivan's case I am prepared to accept exhibitions as title defenses, because there was no other way that they could have been made within the law.

Even if we only include the defenses against men that we know to have been elite fighters, you are still looking at sixteen or more.

That objectively makes him one of the most successful champions in the history of the division.

Many will take the lack of information about many of Sullivan's opponents as justification to assume the worst of them, but in reality it means that you simply don't know either way.

 

Your man crush for Sullivan is interesting.
It comes across as genuine and heart-felt.
Discussing fighters who came 30, 40 years later you're quick to poke fun at "farm hands" and "hoboes" and "miners" and "local toughs" and scoff at the hopeless misty-eyed romanticism surrounding the champions who came up that way in "tough times" of the 1910s, 1920s.

So, what's the deal with you and Sullivan ?
A relative of yours ?

 

Thing is critisizing early champions for beating up local toughs, is like critisizing Anthony Joshua for appearing in adverts.

It certainly shouldn't be used to build them up, but shouldn't do anything to harm a reputation established from beating the best challengers, it was just a way to make some money.

 

I agree with the claims about boxing being a profesional back in the 18th and early 19th century, but that was ol English pugilism, a different sport.
I'm not sure but I have a feeling the sport went into decline in the early Victorian era in England and didn't really pick up again and was almost obsolete when replaced by Queensberry rules which was in its infancy when Sullivan came along in the USA.

 

I agree with all of this.