1) Louis (like Sullivan ) is born on Oct. 15th, 1858. Joe applies himself to boxing under good training. Feb 7th 1882, Sullivan faces, not Paddy Ryan, but Joe Louis. Who do you bet on ? 2) Sullivan (like Louis) is born on May 14th, 1914. John applies himself to boxing under good training. June 22nd, 1938, Louis faces, not Max Schmeling, but John L Sullivan. Who do you bet on?
I picked Sullivan 1882, Louis 1938. But I wouldn't be at all suprised if one fellow won both fights. My thoughts: Louis is more a student of boxing, and likely would have the more refined punching technique. Sullivan's punches straightened out in mid-1881, working with Billy Madden (Pollack has a couple citations from this period to the effect that Sullivan was a straight puncher, no longer a swinger). Louis might be a bit more two-handed, but not drastically so. A lot of power in both right hands. Louis's economy would help, stamina-wise. Sullivan showed good stamina when he was serious about training, and he did train seriously for the first Ryan bout. Chin probably goes to Sullivan. Old Sullivan was a charging bull; prime Sullivan was a big, springing cat. Sullivan's tearing in style is good for Joe if Joe gets set; but it's somewhat moderated by Sullivan being a hard guy to put a punch on (Pollack has numerous attestations to this). Joe has some history with shipping right hands. Ouch. Size? Well, I'd give Sullivan about 195 in his day as a good Queensbury weight, though trained down to about 185 for the London finish fight with Ryan. Sullivan could weigh 200-205 and no one would complain; at about 210 they'd say he was a bit fleshy. Born at the same time, a fit Sullivan might be the heavier, and stronger. Now, this is imagination. I don't know exactly what accidents (in the Aristotelean sense) a Sullivan or a Louis would have in a different era. I look at what they did have in their day, and try to imagine a likely temporal mutation. I hope that, while undeniable imagination, it isn't sheer imagination; that at least the point of departure of the imagining is real, and that what I imagine each doing in a certain context is constrained by what they did in their own day.
I think that Sullivan as a talent was comparable to guys like Dempsey Louis and Marciano. He also used a low crouch of the type that often gave Louis problems. I think that it is safe to say that both would at least be the second best fighter during the others prime. Hard to say how each fighter would adapt to the others era and Sullivan is something of an unknown quantity. If Louis took Sullivan lightly like he did Schmeling he could well be in for a beating. If he took him seriously then I think that he should at least win in his own era.
Hi, HomicideHenry. I was imagining a scenario where Louis was born into Sullivan's day, and another where Sullivan was born into Louis's day. I get the impression that mid-1881 through 1883 was Sullivan's peak. Pollack's citations of the Kilrain fight mention both folk who thought who thought it was Sullivan's best, and other's who thought his performance magnificent, though not quite at early 1880's level. Jack McAullife thought the earlier Sullivan was better, and Pollack, in the last chapter of his Sullivan book, cites a brother of one of Sullivan's opponents (I forget the name) that late 1870's-mid 1880'swas Sullivan's peak. (I'll try to dig up the citation). I pick mid-1881 through 1883 as the period bounded on one end by Sullivan's punches straightening out, on the other end by Sullivan's growing fondness for the bottle.
I give it to Sullivan if fought in LPR vs Louis, and Louis under 1930's gloves rules. All this assuming on no real footage of Sullivan, but Sullivan was king of that rule set, so I have to give him the edge under London Prize rules.
Since the 1882 Ryan match was London, I'll keep that rule set for Sullivan vs Louis. But feel free to comment on a Queensbury finish fight between those two, 3-5 oz gloves.
