The honesty of John L Sullivan. Were other champions as honest?

That doesn't even make sense..Sullivan was the first recognized boxing champ in 1885,there was no era before him,how could there be a transition era? you said you were on drugs,give me some of whatever you're on.:deal

 

The bare knuckle era was going on long before The heavyweight title existed...

 

Without video footage/film where and how do you measure anything?You don't..regardless talking sanctioned boxing,Sullivan the FIRST recognized boxing champ and even hes not on ANY video footage,its all hearsay to how skilled he was and he thought Jefferies was great so that tells all.

 

People will always believe advancement when it's presented too them in its natural form. Truth is the general population at the time thought it was weak to admit failure, an didn't see the benefits of learning from mistakes.

John was a visionary, as a master he seen his pupils surpass him, an became to understand and admire it.

While it wasn't the "tough guy" thing to do at the time, it certainly endeared him to the common man and played huge role in his celebrity status.

 

Yet that doesn't fully tell the picture because you can always link a certain fighter from the past era who beat someone from the new and improved era.....

 

he also once said something about there shouldn't be separate titles by color line, I am sure he said something about it devaluing his title somewhere and that he ought to have fought blacks.

probably got wiser as his illness set in.



but yeah I think if Sully had retrained to fight with new methods he would be just as fearsome (though then less fearsome in his old ring)

 

He was competitive. He kod a fringe top 10 contender in Jim Mccormick during jeffries reign.

 

There is plenty of print though, and to compare fight reports of Sullivan's with, say, Daniel Mendoza, is to become aware of Mendoza's superiority in hitting and not getting hit.

The other key point is the use of gloves which goes back as far as the 1700's. Tom Belcher for instance, though a decent bare-knuckler, impressed far more with the gloves on in less physical exhibitions. Now this was in the early 1800's but here was a fighter clearly better suited to Queensberry.

The evolution of boxing is a more undulated affair than this supposed, continuous rise.

 

Jeffries never seemed to.:think

 

So you actually thought that was Jeffries and Fitz in there? It didn't strike you that the ring was rather small? Like maybe ten feet square?:huhAnd that they are intentionally missing each other until the knockdown? OMG!atsch

 

A better example would be Tom Johnson, heavyweight champion before Mendoza who was praised for his careful, economic style of wearing opponents down. He was even credited with working out game plans before a fight.

There were actually cries of "Foul!" as Johnson pummelled Mendoza. He was thought to be a fine technician and a helluva athlete, but an opportunist for sure.

I can believe what Sullivan says has some truth to it but his language seems a bit self-effacing. Sometimes, for the sake of sportsmanship, athletes will go overboard.

 

I once said I had seen Langford v Hague ,but I realized my mistake it was Langford v Lang. I then came on here and said I was mistaken.
You still insist you have seen Langford v Hague, you haven't, it does not exist and hasn't for , many, many years, as Klompton has pointed out lots of times.