John Sullivan In The Modern Era

You remain delusional on the topic.

 

Do not understand the question or is to point

 

In all fairness to John L Sullvain gloved boxing was in it infancy when he fought in the latter stages of his career. And one of the main reasons they fought that style was to protect the hands. Boxing techniques didn't really evolve until the introduction of gloves just like MMA didn't until grappling was introduced.

 

i get the impression that if he was adaptable the he could figure.

but he wasnt. He would adapt enough to smash plenty of course but not the top tier. He would suffer from techniques that he would feel unmanly and rules that disqualify him in the heat of the moment. He would refuse to fight some guys because of his evil beliefs in a "colour line" (sorry mods but its him, not me, and its a fact this was evil), so his career would never take off.

Calling Sully a world champion was generous even back in his time seeing as boxing wasnt fully global then, nor even the whole representation of his own country.


That said, he would surprise us with some wins, I would suggest that if Dustin Nichols can nearly smash WIlder then SUlly could give him a new hole too. And there is no doubt that he would have a good chance if it was Wilder Joshua ad Fury thrown back to the 19th century. I even doubt todays trio would get in the ring after witnessing the rare and roughshod world of bare knuckle to gloved transition.

 

Was he not adaptable?

He beat every title claimant, under two completely different rule sets (Bare knuckle and Queensbury).

He specialized in short 4-6 round Queensbury fights, which were a lot like amateur fights today, and he prevailed in bare knuckle fights that lasted up to three hours.

That to me suggests a lot of adaptability!

I disagree there.

Sullivan fought a lot more overseas fighters than most of the champions of the 20th century.

I also don't think that the color line is a huge issue, simply because there were no particularly strong black contenders, until he was on his way out any way.

 

Seeing as Fury is a traveller I doubt he’d be bothered in the slightest

 

true, though i'd not be surprised if he'd be surprised

 

Janitor,

I appreciate your enthusiasm and class, but Sully didn't always shine vs. weaker competition. If he was the 5th heavyweight champion, he'd be mixing it with Fitzsimmons Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Johnson, Mcvey, Langford, Jeanette, O'Brien...those guys, each of which would be better than anyone he defeated. Sully's best win is likely Charle Mitchell. He does not belong with the above names at heavyweight

It would settle the mystery for sure, we can agree on that.

 

Those men might be better than the men that he defeated, but he was far more successful than any of them.

Why would we assume that strong opposition would make him look worse?

 

Janitor,

I appreciate your enthusiasm and class, but Sully didn't always shine vs. weaker competition. If he was the 5th heavyweight champion, he'd be mixing it with Fitzsimmons Jeffries, Hart, Burns, Johnson, Mcvey, Langford, Jeanette, O'Brien...those guys, each of which would be better than anyone he defeated. Sully's best win is likely Charle Mitchell. He does not belong with the above names at heavyweight

It would settle the mystery for sure, we can agree on that. - Mendoza

Those men might be better than the opponents Sullivan defeated? They were! How was Sullivan more successful? He did not have the long career of Fitzsimmons or Langford and had far fewer title defenses than Jeffries or Johnson.

Sully's opposition, in my opinion, was several notches below the above men I mentioned, and he didn't always shine Hence stronger opposition would certainly make him look worse, not better.

I think Sullivan was born into the perfect time. He fought at a time when there were few heavy hitters ( outside of himself ). He did not fight either Killen or Jackson, who were big men that could punch. Unless you think the defense was better in the 1880s, ( I'm assuming you don't ) it was a puncher's paradise. It's not that hard to figure out. I do agree with you that Sullivan really stood out in his time

 

George Godfrey?

 

I see Godfrey as somebody who would have made a good challenger, but not a standout.

 

You can't really say that when they didn't fight each other.

The most that I would say, is that circumstantial evidence suggest them to have been better.

Sullivan had 33 title defenses, if you take his reign as beginning when he beat Paddy Ryan.

He held the lineal title for about a decade.

That is about as successful as you get as heavyweight champion!

This is all supposition at the end of the day.

Personally I do think that Sullivan's era was weak, but he can afford for it to be, given his level of dominance.

Clearly his opponents were the best available at the time.

I don't know where you get the idea that there were not many heavy hitters around.

Frank Herald was regarded as being the hardest hitter of the era, including Sullivan himself.

Jimmy Elliot could seriously crack as well.

Peter Jackson was very effective against older versions of the men that Sullivan had beaten, but he didn't always put them away convincingly.

 

33 title defense? Were some of them just promotions/exhibitions or were they all real title defenses? 99% of the people who know boxing would say Joe Louis holds the record for title defenses.

We agree the era was weak, and we agree Sullivan didn't face the best of his time. ( Jackson, Slavin, others... ) If you take out Ernie Shavers or Tommy's Morrison's best opponents, they might look like Sullivan too.

Heard didn't take a good punch. Did he hit harder than Sullivan? Which historian of the times says that? This to me is news.

Jimmy Elliot, I looked him up. I see most decisions or losses, few KO's so I'd say his power wasn't that great.

What is the best book on heavyweight boxing from 1870-1892, written in the times?

 

The problem is that a lot of Sullivan's defenses were billed as exhibitions, to avoid legal repercussions, even though the title was on the line.

Adam Pollack estimates that he put his title on the line 33 times, and I don't think that anybody suspected the magnitude of the thing, before Adam published his first book!

There are also sources that suggest that George Dixon had 30+ title defenses.

Sullivan basically fought anybody who would get in the ring with him, until he broke his arm in the Cardiff fight.

Then he suddenly developed a newfound appreciation of the color line.

I lean towards Jackson and Slavin being better than the men that Sullivan fought in his prime, but aren't they really the best of the next generation?

Yes Herald was probably what you like to call a glass cannon.

Enough people at the time lauded his power, that even his CBZ bio talks about him being a harder hitter than Sullivan!

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/herald-frank.htm

That is one Sullivan bout that I would love to have seen!

Jimmy Elliot knocked out Captain James Dalton in 46 seconds!

Peter Jackson couldn't match this, and neither could Sullivan himself!