[RING, March 1962] John L. Sullivan…A False Legend?

I can hardly respect a boxer who lost to that slapping pansy Corbett.

And why were most boxers drunken Irishmen? Sure they were recent immigrants to the US, but did no one else box?

 

There was a bigger gap between Sullivan and his closest competition than any other heavy champ who followed him.

Focussing on his latter bouts, particularly the wet and soggy affair on grass against Mitchell where Sullivan could not get footing, is just intellectual dishonesty. Downplaying Kilrain also rings hollow. A couple wins over Godfrey, one over Burke and a draw versus Mitchell speaks of his class.

 

The Hibernian Race represents the finest seed of Northern Europe.

 

Mitchel hit the deck as soon as Sullivan had him in any difficulty,torrential rain turned the ring into a quagmire making it difficult for both fighters to get any purchase , but especially difficult for the bigger, less nimble Sullivan.

 

Did it never occur to you that I might have other things to do with my evenings than trawl through books looking for them?

Anyway, the observation is attributed to Davis by the Daily Picayune July 7 1889.

It is cited in Pollack's first biography of Sullivan.

 

This I would agree with.

There were also a couple of false dawns.

People had been saying for years that Sullivan's lifestyle was going to catch up with him, and that he was ready to be taken by Herald or Killrain, but of course it didn't happen.

That is why a lot of people did not see it coming when it finally did happen.

 

I'd want to see Sullivan vs Holmes since they were 100 years apart

 

We have entire threads of you praising Sullivan's opposition as legitimate M of Q caliber opponents , not just the best of their day but creditable. Review our round and round over that .. Jackson was well established and considered terrific well before 1890. Read William Muldoon telling Sullivan when training him for his 1889 built with Kilrain that he was glad he strongly advised a Jackson fight for Sullivan before this truing even began to save him from a beating.

 

Some here argue that is his competition was okay, but every time I look at it, his opponents are older and smaller.

Who did Sullivan really beat from 1880-1885, relative to other quality champions who proceeded none of his wins would rate favorably? Were any of his competition ( exclude Corbett ) considered to be in the top 10 by says 1920, or even by 1910?

I don't know about London Prize-ring or Bareknuckle rules favoring the smaller fighters. With throws and such, I would say it’s the other way around, and besides who were these larger London / Bareknuckle guys that flopped? The two of the best were Sullivan and Kilrain, both considered large by the standard of their times.


As for the stand and trade comment, Sullivan himself used those words to describe the times he fought in. A puncher's delight with limited concepts for defense or mobility. Adam Pollack, as big as a Sullivan fan as you will find living today will tell you boxing was very different back then, with forward and back type of style. Circling, jabbing, or ring general ship concepts were in the infancy until Corbett made them famous.

I find his lack of KO's in the mid-1880's to be puzzling. Punchers score KO's or stoppages. Way too many of his opponent went the distance in this time frame.

 

There's really not enough information on them for any comparison. We only know they were the best avalible, and he beat them easier

It's not an advantage to be small under the ruleset, but the LPR rules are better for smaller fighters compared with the MoQ rules.

We have sources decades before Corbett with all these concepts.

Well he was starting to decline, and the fights were short, and his opponents repeatedly went down easilly to avoid punishment.

And why focus on that over all the KOs he scored in the early 1880's when he was actually in his prime?

 

I can see that I need to clarify my position.

Sullivan's better challengers were the best ones available, so by definition they must also be credible.

In my opinion they were not as good as the best contenders of the next era, or the best of the previous era, but they were still dangerous.

We have been over all of this before.

There could have been no question of Sullivan facing Peter Jackson before he fought Jake Killrain.

He needed to defeat Killrain to consolidate his title claim, while Jackson was just a potential challenger.

That pushes a potential match with Jackson into 1890 or later.

Does it really change much if Jackson beats him a year or so before Corbett did?

 

He beat them easy. Yes. But were they really the best available? I'm not sure. Sullivan's career is partly defined by who he did not fight, and IMO Jackson, Goddard, or Slavin were better than anyone he beat.

That is different that saying it was an advantage to be small under LPR.

Or he lacked the punch to finish them. Not one or two, but several.

A good question, he fought better gloved fighters in the mid 1880's. When the competition went up, his KO'
s disappeared. I have a hard time thinking a guy in his mid 20's is past his prime. Okay, Sullivan might have been a bit overweight, but so was Butterbean, and his power never went away.

 

Only because people focus entirely on when he was past his best.

I didn't say that. I said LPR gave an advantage to smaller fighters.

Considering they survived short fights by cowering and diving, I doubt it.

I see no reason to think they were better.

Fighters who face top competition at an early age end up past it young too though. He was getting past it in around 1885, but had been fighting top opponents since around 1880 or 1881, depending on who you count. Plus he was drinking crazy amounts, and the fights would almsot certainly be stopped now, probably in the first round or so.

There's more to KOing people than power.

 

Part of the problem is he faced his best opponents in his mid 20's, which is a time when you are saying he was past his best. If power is the last thing to go, I still don't quite understand why he could not land any finishing blows...in his mid 20's.

Not a LRP kind of guy, but I do no think that is accurate.

Not always, sometimes there were hit clearly. They got up easily in many cases.

If Sullivan's prime was that short, and he fought the best post 1885, when you say he was past his best in his mid 20's without stopping most of them, its at best a two way conundrum I can't think of any top heavyweight known as a puncher who could not do it at age 26. Can you?

I agree, there is more to KOing people than power. I think the skill level went up in gloved boxing in the mid 1880's, and Sullivan could not land as cleanly as he once did. A guy like Tommy Morrison who trained in bars, loaded up on who knows what always whacked out his lesser opponents. And a far man like Butterbean did the same to his.