Where do you rank John L Sullivan ATG Hwt champs?

For his era / time zone, John L. Sullivan was great..... However, with the advancement into the 20th century and the progress of the sport to factor in, Sullivan rates low..... Booze or not, I can pick 20 former champs that would more than likely kick his ass hard in a time machine........ John L. Sullivan would be lost in the ring with slick but not so big and powerful ex-champs like "Tunney & Patterson." It would be the skill and speed that would do in Sullivan in the end.....:bbb

MR.BILL

Note:

From what I've seen and read, John L. Sullivan was NOT a slick or graceful guy with speed and movement. He was a plodder who stalked and threw hard but wide punches for the most part.. He was bullish in the ring, yet he could be outboxed...

 

He supposedly had great handspeed, often commented upon by his contemporaries. Apart from this, you have to take in to consideration the vast difference in rulesets. If that mythical time machine sent the Tunney's of the world back to 1888 and they fought in the woods of Mississippi with all the wrestling and grappling that was allowed, I don't see Tunney walking away from that one.

 

No he wasnt.

He was a scientific ofensive fighter. The prototype for guys like Jack Dempsey and later Mike Tyson.

 

Amazing statement. Please elaborate.

 

What convinced me more than anything else was the case put forward by Adam Pollack in his recent biography of John L Sullivan.

While there are contemporary journalists who describe Sullivan as a bruiser with little science there were also ill informed jopurnalists who said the same thing about Mike Tyson.

By looking at the descriptions of Sullivan by contemporary fighters and trainers Pollack puts together a clear picture of Sullivans strengths and weakneses. Most of the sources who witnesed him directly describe an ofensive fighter who is a methodical finisher and uses a verry low crouch. He threw wide punches early in his career but later straightened tem and made thewm more compact. He was a two fisted fighter early in his career but an injury to his left arm made him more dependant on his right hand (the Boston special) latter on. Sullivan ocasionaly fought bouts with slick boxers like McCaffrey on the terms that he would be arested if a knockout took place. This efectivley meant that he had to outbox them to win.

On a side not it is possible that Sullivan and not Corbett invented the left hook!

 

Regarding the timing of the Sullivan-McCaffrey fight, Pollack (p.123) quotes the Cincinnati Equirer that round five was short -- that, after McCaffrey was downed, the referee confusedly called the round to a halt at about 1:45; this seemed to be why the extra-round was fought.
This might in part explain some of the deviation from what would be the expected timings of a three-minute round fight (though not to the extent which was earlier cited (Tricks77, post #12)).
I highly recommend any of Adam Pollacks writings.

 

Thanks, Janitor.

Obviously Pollack's excellent book persuades the reader that John L. was more technical than he has ever been given credit for. I still believe his skills were honed to prevail mostly in a slugfest and he would have terrrible trouble catching a stylist such as Corbett or Tunney. I mean, his opponents still did not even use a developed left hook!

Is there evidence, as you seem to imply, that Jack Dempsey developed from the John L. prototype? I doubt this and have uncovered no link between the two. Again, John L. seemed to steam forward on a straight track whereas Dempsey perfected a highly developed bob-and-weave that later spawned Mike Tyson.

Pollack's books are certainly treasure troves, but I personally don't expect any of them, present or future, to change the general perception or ranking we have had of any of the heavyweight champions.