Would anyone include John L Sullivan in their Top Ten HW?

I doubt that any of the top black contenders in is prime could have lasted more than a couple of rounds with him.

He is damaged less by the colour bar than many champions who came after him, simply because there were no outstanding balck contenders until late in his reign.

 

Not me.......and simply because I think his era is too different in terms of boxing.....

 

I would put him in top 10 for historic accomplishments, such as making sport bigger, and making the transition to gloved era. His era was so different in way guys fought comparisons are almost impossible to make. He was greatest of time and a great athlete (baeball player and gymnast, plus a strongman.)

 

well you say that but is it true? Jim Crow knocked them all out before they got a chance. I doubt black contenders suddenly poppped out of a barrel when he got old, they were there all the time.

 

Well George Godfrey was the best of the bunch, and he lost to Jake Killrain.

I realy don't think there was anybody in Sullivans class until Peter Jackson came along.

Sullivan was probably as far ahead of the best contenders of his day, as any champion has ever been.

 

what Janitor says is true. Like Wlad today, the gap between champ and contender was massive. Jackson hit his prime just as John L's ended, had he stayed active and in shape unp until the Corbett fight, he'd be a lock for my top 10.

 

Corbett who fought both said Jackson was much better. And Jackson for sure meet and beat better fighters.

 

Well, I have severe doubts about 'the truth' during a period in time when it was seen as 'true' that blacks were an inferior slave race. I find it difficult to believe that there werent blacks who would have taken out Sully, but then they all started popping up when the former slaves (or rather, the formerly unlawfully imprisoned in a Satanic manner) all started having free children. It really seems to me that Sullivan enjoyed a free pass out of fighting some of the strongest, fastest men in America (ex-slaves bred for physical ability) that puts dodgers like today's Calzaghe and Ottke in the shade. I can see him getting pounded out by these men had they had an equal footing and the same access to training, free time and marketing. Blacks suddenly didnt get bred for physical ability AFTER being released from slavery - the potential was there well before black people dominated HW boxing for the next whole century. It just wasnt allowed to flourish, except as Strange Fruit in a most hideous evil way.

Be that as it may, I will have to accept the only facts we have at hand and defer to your knowledges on the subject for now.

 

John L. was Marciano size at 5'-10 1/2 inches, with a 74 inch reach.
Weight: WEIGHT: 190-229 lbs

http://website.lineone.net/~bam98/champs/1.html
John L. Sullivan
(the "Boston Strong Boy")
Sullivan was a boxing immortal, the link between bare knuckles and glove fighting, and the first great American sports idol. He was powerful, quick, could hit with either hand but had exceptional strength in his right, and could take punishment; He is considered still by some to be one of the best heavyweights ever. Sullivan was elected to the Intl. Boxing Hall of Fame in 1990
BORN : October 15 1858; Roxbury, Boston, MA
DIED : February 2 1918; Abington, MA

 

Seamus,

Corbett knew who Sullvian was, and about his career. Very few historians felt Sullvian as top 5 in the early 1920's.

Sullivan did not fight anyone was good as Goddard, unless you think Kilrain was. That is debatable.

As to who did Jackson beat in comparion to Sullivan, Jackson has the clear edge.

Jackson defeated Slavin, who was better than anyone Sullivan beat. Check what Slavin did to Kilran. He crushed him in 9 rounds and 1 rounds...Sullvian had life and death with Kilrain.

Jackson also beat Dooley, a prime Peter Maher, Gofdrey, and Denver Ed Smith. Jackson spared with Fitz once. Fitz said he was the master.

 

I have him nearer Joe Frazier size.

 

Going to the original question, I think it would be difficult to get an accurate answer as a consensus. Many of the lists I see exclude guys like Sullivan, Jackson and Corbett completely even in a top 25 sense. I think many see them as fighters from a transitionary period of boxing, and don't factor them into their rankings at all due to this....I personally struggle to determine an accurate placement because admittadly I am not as familiar with this era as I am with those that would come afterwards. I see Jeffries on quite a few lists and wonder/believe most start their rankings based upon this era onwards.

How many go back as far as Sullivan in ther rankings and does anyone go back even further???

 

Sullivan absolutely dominated a transitional period and a weak era in his prime.

When Jackson and Corbett hit their primes, you had an era with a totaly sick level of talent.

For all that, Sullivan might still have been the best natural talent of the three.