Would John L Sullivan have been a dominant figure ..

John L stood out in the time that he fought by some way. The sport benefited from him. fighters like Fitzsimmons and Jeffries were able to reach the heights they did because of the influence and example Sulivan had shown. We might suppose how John L could have gone a few years later among Fitz and big Jeff, but there might not have been a big Jeff or Fitz had John L not shown the way.

Let’s say he did. Being the phenomenon he was, my guess is Sulivan would have had the same desire to triumph. The competition likely even improves him.

 

Perfect.

 

Yes but both were bigger, far better and had the career accomplishments to prove it. Burke was smaller and far inferior. You’re the one utilizing an obese Sullivans victory over Burke as a justifying career milestone. Where your right is he was likely Sullivans career biggest M of Q win other than the first Mitchel fight.

 

That's a silly attempt and not the first time on this forum. If you have a reading comprehension issue that is your problem not mine.


1. If that's your stance cool bud, you're free to. I'll hold you to this principle when speaking to other figures in future.

2. Physique is a ***** counterpoint and I mean that in every sense of the word *****.


Now that, that has been clarified. Make you an attempt to explain to me what was confusing about the post you quoted because I reckon you are full of ****. That is you say you find feigning confusion a perfectly acceptable tactic of debate. You are either genuinely stupid or a worm. I'll adjust accordingly but something tells me you're gonna work all two of those brain cells and avoid.

 

Okay, I'll go direct to the famed historian then.

What fights did John L fight strictly under LPR, QB, or a consistent mix of the two?


Just saying but he beat the names though doesn't change the fact his fights were made-to-order, rules that favor him.


Does an MMA record play in boxing? BKFC plays in boxing? Can I put together a record you will recognize because I beat the champions of the sports without ever participating in the sport?


You can act like this is a difficult to understand issue all you like. It isn't. I'm being very direct and writing in plain English. John L only ever lost when he fought QB. Simple. John L never beat anyone under LPR, simple. John L never beat anyone under QB, simple. John L's fights are a mix of rules tailored per fight. Simple.

Where are youse lost?

Oh but names and how impressively he won changes, effects, addresses any of that does it?


Love you bro, but that's a shitty stepping to the side and talking about nonpoints response.

 

I ran this through a translator. Hopefully, I am getting the gist of your interlocution.

If you are not completely humbled by those Hibernian Hams you are more a man than I have ever met.

That aside, name me a Heavyweight Champion (BN, LPR, MDQ) who separated himself from his contenders by such a distance as Sullivan did. That man does not exist. Just as no equal to Sullivan has existed since his own day. He was one of one.

 

Sure , why bother with fact like the array of amateurs he fought or how his best opponents were all tiny or his best memorialized wins were bare knuckle ( since what are rules/terms/conditons, ring sizes, gloves or not, bout distance anyway ? To you it's like those slapping contests ) ... there are many fighters who built their reputations by fighting the best and or often and then there are the question marks, based on inactivity or level of competition or advantages over others in their time periods ... to me Sullivan is like Dempsey and to a little degree like Jeffries ... we have no clue how good he was or how good he could have been because who he fought and did not fight ... like Dempsey he gave away his best years ... Dempsey to inactivity and Sullivan to drink .. they are great historical and sociological figures but no one has a clue how good they really were based on top opposition ...

 

You have no idea how many fights his opponents fought if you are relying on boxrec. The rules under which Sullivan fought were the rules deemed appropriate for fistic contests. I'm sorry to inform you that the basics of the sport are to hit and not to be hit and beyond that, it's pretty much window dressing. As far as question marks, I have a question. How many champions from Dempsey on would barnstorm and take on all-comers promising a purse if they lasted 3 rounds? So, sure, let's applaud some pampered prima donna negotiating a fight for two years, preparing for months in well-appointed facilities with every luxury and indulgence, nutritionists, flexibility coaches, strength coaches, hyperbaric chambers, stem-cell therapies, ad nauseum... negotiating to the last minute over weight clauses, glove brand, ring size, ref choice, judge choice, grease paint endorsements, entrance music and costume, only to stink out the joint before taking off the next year, meanwhile leaving the fans wanting something else entirely and feeling ripped off. Give me the dude fresh off the bar car in the train that hauled his robust ass from the last ranching town yesterday to some mining town, who fed on fetid mystery meat and warm porter, who then walks directly to a converted theater with warped floorboard and loose nails, strips to his chest and faces the burliest seed of heritage peasant stock, some barbarian who has seen and possibly fought natives on the frontier, struggled tooth and nail for existence day in and day out, selected through every trial and tribulation Darwin could dream up, all for the offer of $100 to last 3 rounds. Rinse, repeat the next day, the next town, the next savage waiting in the wings for a chance to deck the man.

There, that's how I feel.

 

I am curious to know who you think he missed?

I mean who that was active for any significant period of time when he was active.

That is perhaps not an entirely fair comparison.

Sullivan had injuries and medical complications that Dempsey didn't have during 1888, and he announced his retirement after teh Killrain fight in 1889.