Where would you rank John L. Sullivan?

I struggle to see the reason for having Sullivan as the LPR GOAT when he had like 4 fights with the bare knuckles. Can’t really compare his bare knuckle opposition to Mace, Sayers, Morrissey, King or even more far back like Cribb, Belcher, Broughton either imo.

 

I agree.

Sullivan was primarily a Queensbury fighter, who reluctantly made the transition to LPR rules to unify the titles.

As an LPR Champion he would be at best middle of the pack.

As a Queensbury Champion you could have him as high as you like, depending upon what you think of his era.

 

I consider him the greatest of all time and would beat or give a stern challenge to any champeen who followed up to and including Usyk.

 

He definitely had a reason for top 10,from what I saw and read about his style,he had good skills to pair up with his powers,the "shift that Kilrain can't escape from" is also a great maneuver.

 

I think that the first question that we need to ask, is ho good was Sullivan's opposition?

There is obviously nothing wrong with his results, as far as was possible at the time.

So how strong was the division when he took over?

The short answer is not very.

After Jem Mace retired, the lineage was decided by a fight between Allen and Goss.

Basically elderly versions of the men that Mace had defeated, and who were not considered the best ort brightest opposition in his prime.

Goss won the title, then lost it to Paddy Ryan.

If you think that Sullivan is a realistic candidate for being the weakest lineal champion, then understand that Ryan clearly also held that accolade, as did Goss.

 

So did anything get better during his long reign?

I think that most people would agree that a new generation of heavyweights was emerging, when Sullivan was slipping into gentle obsolescence.

However the results are not entirely one sided.

A young Jim Corbet got schooled by Jack Burke, who Sullivan beat easily.

A past prime Charlie Mitchell knocked out Frank Slavin, who admittedly seems to have been drunk at the time.

My point is, that perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to assume that the men who came after Sullivan, were much better than the mean that he beat.

The evidence doesn't always support that viewpoint.

 

I can’t rank him among the very best. But he will always have recognition as being the first champion of organized boxing

 

I'm yet to research Sullivan in depth and simply don't have the knowledge of his opposition to confidently rank him, so I don't.

Of those posting in this thread, I'd defer to Melankomas and Janitor as clearly being well read about Sullivan and the era.

 

Simply untrue

Sullivan is not the only fighter through the bare knuckle era, which isn't exclusively LPR, to use gloves in his fights.

Sullivan is the only fighter who uses gloves and fight under LPRR to be considered a QB fight.

You can classify him with men who know what a neutral corner is if you like. You can conflate him with men who know what a scheduled round is if you like. You can pretend he fought during a time when weight divisions exist if you like. You can pretend Sullivan is a QB fighter all you want but the fact is he has more in common with Figg than Usyk. Because he isn't a QB fighter. He is an LPR fighter with gloves on.

 

Calling 1880-90's boxing organized is quite a stretch.

 

He was probably terrible in terms of skill...

 

It wasn’t organized in the sense that it would later become by any means no. But it was the beginning

 

Find ANY example of John L Sullivan fighting ANY fight that did not have LPR integrated into the fight.

On top of that John L fought mostly exhibitions

Beyond that they were mostly debutants

Above that the reach of boxing was so small one can only claim the best of America and The British Empire.

Moving past that, John L is the only champion I know of the be crowned on a draw during what you call QB. Sure there is precedence, in BK.

And finally, John L was the champion of whites exclusively. Take on any man, except Old Chocolate.



Beginning of organization? Bro, you are looking at the death fits of the gambling den controlled era of boxing. You are looking at exactly what caused the bodies to form and organize boxing.


You can tell me what you believe and what your opinions are all you like but it isn't my opinion John L fought LPR with gloves on to be called the first QB champion. That's simply what happened. Not my opinion John L fought exhibitions to be champion. Not my opinion John L is given titles based on draws. Not my opinion boxing was indeed so unorganized there was no mechanism to force a champion into defense on the merit of the challenger alone, simply what happened, and, those precedence are found more often in times before him not after him.


Full credit for setting the tone and all that, I am disagreeing with categorization not glorification. He's the last LPR champion, Corbett is your first QB champion.




Who fights like John L? **** all no one?

Who fights like Corbett? Tunney does! And who did Tunney inspire?

Fitzs-Gans-Dempsey

Ryan-Marciano-Tyson

Where's John's style seen today? Isn't?!?!?! Oh but Def Burke reads pretty similar doe. Who'd've ever thunk it.

 

He's the first gloved champ in a way, lost the title in his first defence

 

I confess Corbett was a bit of an easy out for the purpose of making a more refined point.

In all honesty I simply disagree with the idea the gloved LPR fighters are the first modern champions. This thread being about LPR and QB makes it a relative but distinctly more focused conversation and I did try to stay with in those confines ... a little bit.

That said, you touched on a historical truth I can not deny:

Start at the beginning of the sparring masters itself is a nuanced topic. I would contend testing is not sparring and the mufflers of the BK practitioners were for testing men in exhibitions not for practicing nor fighting. That begins with Daniel Mendoza but isn't popularized until Molyneaux vs Cribb

Sparring then becomes a distinct sport separate from prize fighting. About exhibitions. This is lead by William Fuller, a pro fighter himself who would train elites self defense, and Aaron Molyneaux Hewlitt, an early black practitioner and teacher of sparring to those less affluent than mister Fuller's clientele. If memory serves this is about the 1820s

Fuller's success would grow the promotional end of sparring as a sport while Aaron would tour his wares around America. I should have noted Bill had moved to the US. Making sparring somewhat an American practice despite the difference in defense in America and England at that time in LPR.

My point being descriptions and eyes are not deceived; Jim Corbett has MUCH more in common with Mace, King, and Allen than he does Usyk, Lennox, and Holyfield. this is traceable. It came from Aaron and Bill. I mean the entire sparring booth phenomenon came from those dudes.



That said I would contend those currently categorized as early modern are in fact transitional and the modern period begins, at HW, with Joe Louis.

I would concede Dempsey at best, but the color line prevents an otherwise inarguable chronology.

IMO Figg-Paddock is accurate. They are all similar, fighting similar version of boxing under similar conditions.

Sayers - Willard is also accurate in terms of styles, rules, etc. Willard's time has a lot more QB and a lot less LPR in it than Sayer's but still more LPR than Usyk's. Willard knows all about hovering and nothing about neutral corners.

And then Dempsey-Usyk as the actually modern block. In all things except political.

But if we're going to have a singular barrier for categorization, I still disagree with Sullivan being on the QB side of that line.



Lastly, on eyes, you do not need to see a man to read his descriptions and relate them to others. No one ever saw Hercules or Thor but if I draw parallels between them the fact they are similar won't be denied simply because you never saw these known similarities yourself. You know exactly what I mean when I say Sullivan fought like Burke and nothing like Usyk; their descriptions are similar and Usyk's are not.