Thoughts on John L. Sullivan?

He was the best of his era, seemingly by a pretty wide margin in his prime. In terms of how he matches up with more modern fighters, I really have no idea.

 

This thread sums it up.

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/best-five-wins-thread-lineal-ring-magazine-heavyweight-champions.648718/[/url]

 

Boxing starter with very good technique for that time...

 

One of the most dominant heavyweight champions of all time, if not the most dominant.

Make of that what you will.

 

Where do you have Sullivan in an ATG list?

 

I tend not to rank him, as being too much of an unknown quantity.

If you made the assumption that his era was roughly comparably to others (not a given), then you could probably make a solid case for top five.

 

I have may of them, like fifty. Sullivan name is mostly absent. It barely appears at all. I view him as a true pioneer of the sport a fighter who budged the gap between Bare Knuckle prize fighting, London Rules, and the modern day ( since the 1880's ) Marquess of Queensberry.

His resume of wins isn't impressive even for his time and he missed out on better name prize fighters of which would have beaten of did beat his competition from 1892- 1885. If he would have fought Jackson, Slavin Goddard, Maher, Fitz, Killen, Godfrey, and others he would rate higher ( or lowered depending on how he did ) for me.

The best I can say is he best from 1880-1884. His best gloved win in this time line was like over the 150 pound Charlie Mitchell in a fight when he was down in round one.

From 1886 ( age 26 ) -1892 some have excuses for his performances and he really lost the Cardiff fight! I'm unsure who was in the lead of the McCaffrey fight because there is limited data I've seen other than the fight was stopped on a foul. Yet in the fight before Sullivan fouled 5'6 1/2 " Jack Burke several times and won the 5 round decision. Sounds like Sullivan should have been DQ'd vs Burke.

Just my interpretation and I rate him within the timeline he fought in.

 

His ranked fights are probably something like this:

1881 - Dalton (#6)
1882 - Ryan (#1), Collins (#9)
1883 - Mitchell (#6)
1884 - Greenfield (#2)
1885 - Greenfield (#2), Ryan (#8), Burke (#3), McCaffrey (#2)
1886 -
1887 - Cardiff (#4 - Draw)
1888 - Mitchell (#6 - Draw)
1889 - Kilrain (#2)
1890 -
1891 -
1892 - Corbett (#3 - Loss)

So that's 13 fights against top-10 ranked opposition, with 10 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss.

His best years were between 1882 and 1885, when he beat all the best available competition (Ryan, Greenfield, Mitchell, McCaffrey and Burke).

After that he became much less active, and his results against Cardiff and Mitchell in 1887 and 1888 robbed him of some of his reputation as an unbeatable fighter. He restored some of this with his win over Kilrain in 1889, who was being touted as an alternative champion by some.

His retirement in 1890 until 1892 was an important time in the history of boxing, during which 3 clear contenders emerged in the form of Peter Jackson, Frank Slavin and James J Corbett.

He refused to fight Slavin when challenged in 1891, on the grounds that he was retired. He refused to fight Peter Jackson in 1890, and when he returned from retirement in 1892, due to Jackson's skin colour. He eventually lost to Corbett in 1892 after being out of the ring for over 3 years.

If he had followed up his win over Kilrain with wins over Jackson, Slavin and Corbett, I think he would be seen as a clear contender for the greatest of all time. As it is, he was clearly a great champion but doesn't measure up to fighters who would come later and achieve more.

 

Good post!

 

I think that Wilson would probably have held some sort of ranking when they fought, and so would Herald.

 

I find the rankings fine, but he deserved to lose to Cardiff fight, and fouled badly vs McCaffery. So he deserves at least one more loss on his resume. I agree pre 1885 he fought ranked completion and beat them cleaner. Kliran was a bare kncuke fight.

 

I think it is reasonable to dismiss the Cardiff loss when rating Sullivan's standing, he broke his arm in the first round and only survived by pluffing and his reputation than led Cardiff to fear a trap. Maybe he should have lost but the fight in some ways actually enhanced his reputation.

 

You would think that people would make some allowance for the circumstances.

If you don't make some allowance for a broken arm, then it is difficult to see what would amount to a mitigating factor!

 

He was a physical marvel of sorts in his brief prime ... a true fighting man, as his autobiography was titled, a 19th Century Gladiator ... it was a far, far different sport that he practiced, absolute infancy to where it would be twenty years later but the man seemed to have true hand speed, great strength, natural stamina, a terrific chin, an unquestioned fighter's heart and killer instinct and true KO power in his right hand ... I don't rate him against other M of Q fighters that followed ... he was a gatekeeper to another age and sport ..