Was Sullivan as great as Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali ?

No. John L was a tough guy,but never achieved the level of dominance that Muhammad and Joe had.

 

As a fighter, Sullivan would pound Ali and Joe Louis making a good fighter for a couple of rounds. He's capabable of knocking down both fighters. Don't know about beating them though.

If this is a popularity contest in terms of who's heavyweight appeal was the greatest?
You could argue for Sullivan. At one time it was said that his picture could be seen in nearly every bar and saloon in the US when he was champion.

 

Well he was the man who got the ball rolling so the correct question is "are louis and ali as great as sullivan" the overwhelming answer should be yes.

As great as john was from 82 until about 88 he never fought the leading contender, this was even worse when the leading contender became jackson who was, imo, just as great as john l was.

Maybe without the broken arm he'd have continued fighting and would have eventually crossed the colour line but, well, he didn't.

As far as pioneers go he set a high bar, these two certainly deserved to follow in his footsteps.

 

are you mentally handicapped or something? how could this relic from the past pound ali and louis? he'd probably be unable to even hit them.

what is it with some people here and the old time boxers? i used to think it was all joking, but i see its actually serious.
people seem to believe that some of them were 'supermen'. they simply do not compare with the latter day fighters. that is unbelievably obvious!

 

I think for his time he was just as influential and important, but by all accounts as a fighter he was not on their level.

 

On one hand, fighters in the 1880s blocked with their jaws and didn't understand the concept of punching. Most just gummed their opponents with their rotted teeth.

On the other hand, fighters in the 1880s carried train cars loaded with deer carcasses on their backs during hunting trips. Also, everything ever written about them was true.

So I'd say yes, and no.

 

Joe would knock him out in 2. Ali would knock him out in 6-8.

 

He was actualy more dominant than either of them at his peak, but this was due to the weak and chaotic state of the division.

The answer is no, he was not as great as they were, but he might be shockingly close to it.

 

Comparing John L. Sullivan to later greats is complicated by Sullivan's flourishing during the bareknuckle era under London Prize Ring rules. This was a more wild, rough-and-tumble game than that ushered in under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Sullivan's style was ideally suited to the bareknuckle era. As this era declined and Sullivan aged, and Peter Jackson came to the forefront, Sullivan probably realized deep down that his day was rapidly passing. He probably thought that he could still beat Corbett even with gloves. His performance as a gloved gladiator is less than stellar, and the Sullivan of New Orleans probably would not have fared well with most of his successors. Prime Sullivan's bareknuckle skills would probably not be so effective in the gloved era, but had he come along and developed under Queensbury rules, I believe he would have been a very formidable force - an earlier version of Jeffries, Dempsey, and Marciano.

As far as influence goes, he belongs at the top with the best. In his own time he was legendary, virtually invincible as a strong, powerful bareknuckle brawler with amazing endurance. Even as a shot fighter using gloves for the first time in a championship fight, it still took Corbett 21 rounds to put him away. Even today his name is well known, better than many of his gloved successors.

 

The biggest misconception that people have about Sullivan is thinking that he was a bareknuckle fighter. He was first and foremost a gloved fighter, who only fought bareknuckle when he had no choice in the matter.

You have a point however, in that his curent stature rests on the fact that he brought together gloved and bareknuckle title claims.

 

you are incorrect. the leading contenders from 1882 to 1888 were all pounded into the dirt by sullivan, from ryan to mitchell to slade to mccaffery and kilrain and all the local champions who dared face him. jackson came to the front long after sullivan's best and the same goes for slavin and goddard.

 

most people greatly under rate sullivan,

hed ko a pre war ali and lose by ud against a post war ali.

vrs louis it would be like max baer vs louis, just a slug fest but with sullivan having a better chin then baer. as far as a winner id like to go with louis but really it would be a toss up.

yes sullivan was as great as louis and ali, just as louis and ali were as great as sullivan.

 

Sullivan was the man in the 1880s for sure.... His luck ran out in '92 against Jim Corby in Louisiana... But, yeah, for a decade like the 1880s, Sullivan was the baddest man in the ring...

However, via time machine, no.... Sullivan would be butchered to death by a 1940s Louis or a 60s & 70s Ali...

MR.BILL