Sullivan fight of the week Sullivan Burke

It's interesting that after meeting with Sullivan in 1891, Slavin totally accepted that Sullivan had valid reasons for not fighting

 

By the time Jackson rose to prominence Sullivan's prime was past,would it have changed how we view him if a, top of his game, Jackson had defeated him?

 

I think I'd pick Jackson to beat Corbett prime for prime.

 

Corbett is hard to evaluate because he had hardly any fights, especially in his prime. Going into his fight with Jackson he was still pretty inexperienced and after he beat Sullivan he could make more not boxing, and didn't really take care of himself.

I think he "wasted" his potential, but only in boxing terms, he did pretty well for himself generally.

 

Boxrec list three decision fights for Professor William Miller, in one night I found about 15 gloved fight for him prior to his win over Foley, at least half of them primary sources and multiple exhibitions, so a fair bit of stuff is out there, just a bit hard to find. I was rating top tens at year-end for the years 1882-1891 and was finding I was leaving2/3 worthy contenders off, this relates well to other periods. The fact is that from 1882 to 1888 at least, the better fighters happened to be smaller, there were a number of 6 foot, 200 plus pounders, most just not very good, and this trend continued up to nearly 1930. I think the rules, fight duration etc was a factor.

 

There is some information, but still very incomplete, I won't have nearly as much as you do. There seems to be enough to get an idea of what was going on. But not to convince someone who takes their intentional ignorance as such a badge of honor they have to constanly parade it around and shout it in everyone's face. Atleast not with what I have.

There is also the issue that some regions seem to have been better recorded, or atleast people haven't gone through the records of some regions as much.

The dynamic of a big champion and the contenders mostly being smaller is pretty standard for other periods so in some ways it makes sense.

 

Interesting I'v e never heard that quote.

 

A Janitor classic .. Let's have Janitor start a thread about how many of John L. Sullivan's M of Q opponents could defeat specific heavyweight champions .. I figure with his 66,000 posts which essentially means if he posted twice a day it would take him over sixty years to reach the total he has the time.

Let's specifically list which of John L. Sullivan's M of Q opponents could have defeated other specific heavyweight champions .. time to back up the jibber.

 

Why champions, wouldn't contenders be far fairer?

And M of Q, so does that exclude Police Gazette rules as well as LPR with gloves?

Maybe a few could beat Joe Louis since he didn't fight without the neutral corner rule.

And since the Klitchskos have no experience in anything like the old school M of Q fights I suppose they wouldn't stand a chance either.

 

Jack Johnson in a 1929 interview on Sullivan:

" John L. Sullivan is a tradition of the ring but actually he was nothing more than a big, strong, tough, game fellow who knew little or nothing of what we consider boxing today. His losing fight with Corbett was the best illustration of his shortcomings."

 

His all time heavyweight rankings from 1929 (excluding himself),

1 Bob Fitzsimmons
2 James J. Jeffries
3 Peter Jackson
4 James J Corbett
5 Sam Langford
6 Sam McVey
7 Joe Jennette
8 John L Sulivan
9 Philidelphia Jack O' Brien
10 Tom Sharkey
11 Gene Tunney
12 Jack Dempsey

Do you also agree with that?