Sullivan fight of the week Goss vs Sullivan

Bit,

What I said from a source, some of which has primary information. If you have better information on Sullivan, by all means, post it here. If you say what I am posting is wrong, the onus is on you to say where. I don't see that. Come back with this primary data you are talking about, and I'll read it.

There is a difference between London Rules and Queensberry gloves. What I pointed out is Sullivan under 30 years old despite having a size advantage often took the best named gloved fighters the distance. Sullivan himself by the way preferred gloves.

He broke his left arm later in his career. Okay, but wasn't Sullivan best known for his right hand Corbett says so. So why couldn't this big right-hand land?

I don't care if he drank, most did back then. I'm sure you can apply the same excuses to his opponents in regards to drinking. My comments are related to his skills and power. As they say, power is the last thing to go, and the mid to late 1880's were not a time known for skill.

To quote Sullivan himself, he said I would have no chance vs. Jeffries because by then the game had changed dramatically and became more scientific. So there you have it, he's telling you whatever skills you image he might have did not compare to boxing just ten years after his last fight, and we can see many matches between 1898-1910 on film.

PS: The gloves have changed a lot. Sometimes Sullivan fought with 3oz gloves; there were no glove standards back then.

PPS: I listed what I think were the best-gloved fighters he fought. Can you list any better?

 

I would refer to Pollack's books on Sullivan for a more complete examination of his career and better perspective on what he accomplished.

And Sullivan didn't just "drink". I believe he drank himself into multiple comas, on the brink of death's door. He was a hardcore alcoholic of the worst sort.

 

Boxrec links to a wiki, with some more info for some bouts including several you mentioned.

You have to look up accounts of fights, a lot of early fights were stopped, but for various reasons are listed as pts or even draws (in the case of Fitz Vs Choyenski).

He actually broke it early in the first round of the Patsy Cardiff fight. Kinda matters, doesn't it?

Also Corbett is a terrible source for Sullivan, they despised each other. Plus Corbett fought Sullivan when he was finished.

Like Seamus said, he didn't drink a bit, he half killed himself. From what I've read in 1888, half a year before his legendary fight with Kilrain, he was so ill from drink he dropped from 280 to 160Ibs

Jake Kilrain is up there, Sullivan fought him with gloves, but Jake had a good gloved career. I think this whole "gloved resume" idea is silly anyway, bareknuckle was a part of boxing. Ignoring half his career, and up to nearly all of his opponents, doesn't change the career he had.

Modern boxing is very different from the prize ring, but the transition didn't happen overnight, a lot of the new rules weren't that enforced, some gloved fights still used the prize ring rules, and the smaller gloves aren't as different from bareknuckle as modern ones in terms of stopping shots.

 

I agree with you on Wiki.

If Sullivan broke his left arm vs. Patsy Cardiff in 1887, my question remains why didn't he stop the others in the mid-1880's sooner or at all? His right hand was fine, and so was his left before this time.

On Seamus point of Sullivan drinking and winning, what does that tell you about the quality if his opponents? I saw boxing matches ( Lower level bar/club ) tough-man events, and the drunk man gets badly beaten almost ever time.

My contention is Sullivan was an excellent London Prize-ring type, but just good enough to defeated mediocre competition with gloves under Queensberry rules, often taking the best gloves guys he fought the distance.

As I have said before, Peter Jackson, Frank Slavin ( Sullivan ducked both ), Joe Goddard or Pat Killen all would have been Sullivan best opponents, aside from Corbett. John L's resume of wins remain thin to me. Heck Mick Dooley or even a young Peter Maher would have added to it as well.

I agree Jake Kilrain was good, but look what Frank Salvin did to him! Slavin finished the same guy twice faster than Sullivan did. KO9, KO 1.

Sullivan would not fight Slavin, even though the top man at the Police Gazette Richard K. Fox offered the match.

 

Yeah but if you read the report Dominick McCaffrey was being bashed around the ring and repeatedly dropped, and it was only a short fight.

The Jack Burke fight actually was stopped, he was knocked down multiple times then resorted to repeatedly diving with even being hit so he couldn't be hurt, so the ref ended the fight. And considering his weight, this clearly wasn't a very serious fight.

If it must be gloved, there are a lot of other fighters that atleast match your picks 4 and 5 going through it quickly
"Captain" James Dalton had beaten John J. Dwyer, and would go onto beat Paddy Ryan
Frank Herald, good size, decent number of wins including over Mike Conley
Jimmy Elliot, old but with a recent win, good size and former champion of America
Pete McCoy, another notable middleweight
Also George Rooke, and Professor John Donaldson (LPR with gloves)

 

Dropped for sure, but enough power to KO them, that did not happen. I think the short fight helped Sullvian, as he could afford to attack much smaller men without worrying about his conditioning in the later rounds.

Do you agree with me that Peter Jackson, Frank Slavin Joe Goddard, Pat Killen, and Peter Maher were better than anyone Sullivan beat? I do. I'll leave out Mick Dooley, the Aussie heavyweight champ, only because some may view Mitchell as better.

Had Sullivan fought Jackson or Slavin in the mid 1880's or early 1890's I think the title changes hands.

 

No I don't. Maher had done nothing while Sullivan was still fighting, and even his earliest known fights were when Sullivan was towards finished, and it took him much longer to come to any prominence. Peter Jackson maybe, I'd say he's the one that really should have had a shot, but I think the more gloved fights due to the influence of Mace and Foley scew people's views (especially people on boxrec). Slavin, not so much, though a good opponent. Joe Goddard, clearly after Sullivan's time. Did Pat Killen even want Sullivan? I see he challenged everyone apart from Sullivan.

 

Yes it is True.

The editor of the Police Gazette Magazine ( Richard K Fox ) backed Slavin to meet Sullivan. When Sullivan did not come to terms, Fox gave the Police Gazette belt to Slavin.

SLAVIN, NOTED BOXER OF YEARS AGO, DIES

Once the Rival of Sullivan, He Fought in Ring for 22 Years-- Veteran of World War.

VANCOUVER, B.C., Oct. 17-- Frank Slavin, aged 67, famous heavyweight of the John L. Sullivan era of pugilism, died in Shaughnessy Military Hospital today after an illness of more than a year.

Slavin, whose real name was Sydney Cornstalk, was born in Maitland, N.S.W., Jan. 5, 1862, about four years after Sullivan was born in Boston.

Slavin begin his professional fighting career. In 1885 and during the next twenty-two years fought most of the top notchers, including Jem Smith, Jake Kilrain, Peter Jackson, Bob Armstrong, Frank Craig and Jim Hall.

Slavin always claimed that the only reason he was not heavyweight champion was because Sullivan would not meet him.

Slavin went to the Yukon during the stampede in 1898 and enlisted as a private in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces and served at the front in France during the World War when he was 54 years old. After the war he did considerable prospecting, but was stricken with a serious illness in 1928.
New York (New York) Times, October 18, 1929.

Note: the Times has it wrong; Francis Patrick Slavin's nickname was "The Sydney Cornstalk" because of his height.

 

BitplayerVesti,

The question was:

Do you agree with me that Peter Jackson, Frank Slavin Joe Goddard, Pat Killen, and Peter Maher were better than anyone Sullivan beat?

You seem to know a bit about John L. In your opinion who were his best three wins? My contention is none of them were better than the above names I mentioned.

 

I think the fact that a 42 years old 5'8" middleweight was the top dog at one point doesn't speak to well for the quality of the field.

 

I think there's a good chance Peter Jackson was a match for anyone Sullivan beat. I'm not convinced about the others, certainly not when Sullivan was fighting, let alone at his peak.

Honestly, I wouldn't say I know that much about him. I have spent some time looking into early boxing in general though, and looking through news archives, I suspect a lot of modern opinions are biased by the knowledge we have vs what has been lost, reporting was worse earlier in Sullivan's career, with his stardom being part of what increased reporting.