how good was john l sullivan?

[fg2227]

How good was he ? How highly do people rate him?

[C. M. Clay II]

How good was he ? How highly do people rate him?

He was good for his time, but he would get smashed today.

That is all.:hi:

[Luigi1985]

He was good for his time, but he would get smashed today.

That is all.:hi:


Every man from that time would get smashed today, that´s just normal, smart-ass...

[C. M. Clay II]

Every man from that time would get smashed today, that´s just normal, smart-ass...

:blood

[Luigi1985]

:blood


I know that you don´t like Sullivan, because you say he was a racist (although unfortunately in this time it was normal), but than stay off a Sullivan-topic...

[mcvey]

How good was he ? How highly do people rate him?
Well he was "the man" for nearly 10 years apart from refusing to meet black fighters.Sullivan brought universal interest and recognition to the title,he was loved by the crowd and held in awe,he was larger than life and set the standard for the men who followed to aspire to.
Probably towards the end of his career ,or maybe even when he was in his prime ,Peter Jackson ,would have beaten him if given the chance,we will never know.Today Sullivan wouldnt acheive much but in his time he was the KING.

[C. M. Clay II]

I know that you don´t like Sullivan, because you say he was a racist (although unfortunately in this time it was normal), but than stay off a Sullivan-topic...

And let me guess... You say he's not, right?:lol:

[Luigi1985]

And let me guess... You say he's not, right?:lol:


You know my opinion on that one. For me, it´s a no contest. He was born in a racist time, it´s normal that he was also racist. Today I´m absolutely no racist or anything like that, if I was born in his era I probably would have been a racist too, unfortunately, you know what I mean? He simply had no real chose...

[SevenSamurai]

He was a champion of his time, but during his time the competition was limited as was his level of performance.

[joe33]

So what if he was racist,every man has a right to like who the hell he likes,if you dont like that,then tough,its a nasty big old world out there,with people from many races who aint ever gonna like ya so get used to it,and dont bitch about it.
John L was the man,also id fucking love to see todays boxers go back in time,and try and fight with the facilitys back then,then try and have as many fights as they did,then we would see just how tough they really are,could they box 20,30,40 or more rounds,id doubt many of the protected men of today really could do that.

[Vantage_West]

So what if he was racist,every man has a right to like who the hell he likes,if you dont like that,then tough,its a nasty big old world out there,with people from many races who aint ever gonna like ya so get used to it,and dont bitch about it.
John L was the man,also id fucking love to see todays boxers go back in time,and try and fight with the facilitys back then,then try and have as many fights as they did,then we would see just how tough they really are,could they box 20,30,40 or more rounds,id doubt many of the protected men of today really could do that.:patsch DERKHEAD

[janitor]

He was good for his time, but he would get smashed today.

That is all.:hi:

Under what rule set?

I doubt that any fighter today would provide him with a serious challenge in a bare knuckle bout.

[radianttwilight]

It's really annoying when people bring up the "fighter X fought an 80 round fight so that means he was the most conditioned guy ever!" argument, because it's simply false.

Not only was the fight game MUCH slower-paced back then, but when a fight is scheduled for 80/100/some obscene number of rounds, hell some fights were scheduled to last until SOMEBODY got KO'd, if you were ever in trouble during a round, you took a knee.

Just cause a fighter "fought 50 rounds" doesn't mean he had 50x3minutes of Hagler-Hearns action.

[Luigi1985]

It's really annoying when people bring up the "fighter X fought an 80 round fight so that means he was the most conditioned guy ever!" argument, because it's simply false.

Not only was the fight game MUCH slower-paced back then, but when a fight is scheduled for 80/100/some obscene number of rounds, hell some fights were scheduled to last until SOMEBODY got KO'd, if you were ever in trouble during a round, you took a knee.

Just cause a fighter "fought 50 rounds" doesn't mean he had 50x3minutes of Hagler-Hearns action.


That´s logical, otherwise you would collapse...

[mcvey]

:rofl Good old Luigi!:rofl :rofl :rofl

[janitor]

Just cause a fighter "fought 50 rounds" doesn't mean he had 50x3minutes of Hagler-Hearns action.

But some of them actualy did.

That is the scary thing.

[radianttwilight]

But some of them actualy did.

That is the scary thing.

Really? I'd seriously like to see one of them :D Any good examples?

A common source of the "old-timers > new-school" argument is the myth of the extended fights, though.

And although a 50 round fight is interesting, some people just see the "50 round fight" and think "oh my god it was a total war that lasted for dayzzz!!" when those were clearly the exception, and most of those 50 rounds were nowhere near as intense/exciting/brutal as a round of boxing today.

[Luigi1985]

Really? I'd seriously like to see one of them :D Any good examples?

A common source of the "old-timers > new-school" argument is the myth of the extended fights, though.

And although a 50 round fight is interesting, some people just see the "50 round fight" and think "oh my god it was a total war that lasted for dayzzz!!" when those were clearly the exception, and most of those 50 rounds were nowhere near as intense/exciting/brutal as a round of boxing today.


No, you´re right, boxing back in that times, without any gloves or with real rules wasn´t that brutal like today, today the referee stops a fight only when someone is almost death (latest example, Calzaghe- Manfredo)...

[joe33]

:patsch DERKHEAD

At least spell it right you fucking freak.

[joe33]

No, you´re right, boxing back in that times, without any gloves or with real rules wasn´t that brutal like today, today the referee stops a fight only when someone is almost death (latest example, Calzaghe- Manfredo)...


:lol: Damn right mate,those old guys were warriors,to many protected men today.

[Luigi1985]

:lol: Damn right mate,those old guys were warriors,to many protected men today.


:yep

[radianttwilight]

No, you´re right, boxing back in that times, without any gloves or with real rules wasn´t that brutal like today, today the referee stops a fight only when someone is almost death (latest example, Calzaghe- Manfredo)...

Let's break down this post and examine some of the key points-


1. Boxing had no gloves in the early days.
Correct.

2. Boxing had no rules in the early days.
FALSE. Bareknuckle boxing had rules, and trying to slander bareknuckle boxing, even with such sarcasm, by saying it had "no rules" is only cheapening the achievements of the bareknuckle champions. They were sportsmen, not cavemen.

If you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo, a total joke stoppage that is the EXCEPTION to the modern-day TKO, to glamorize bareknuckle boxing, on the other hand...don't make shit up like "bareknuckle boxing had no rules" to help prove it.

The lack of "brutality" in bareknuckle boxing is from the extremely small amount of punches thrown in a bareknuckle fight in comparison to a modern-day gloved fight.

Yes, a bareknuckle punch hurts worse, and can cripple you in one shot MUCH more easily than a gloved punch. That's the reason many bareknuckle fights ended with VERY few landed punches in comparison to the modern fights. A modern fighter, however, needs many more punches to fuck his opponent up beyond recognition, and he only has 12 (or 15) rounds to do it, as opposed to 50.

Besides, if you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo...I will use Morrison-Mercer, which is almost unarguably a bigger beatdown than any in bareknuckle history :good A guy getting trapped in the corner and flat-out mashed for 15+ unanswered punches is more brutal than a guy getting laid out with one shot.

[Luigi1985]

Let's break down this post and examine some of the key points-


1. Boxing had no gloves in the early days.
Correct.

2. Boxing had no rules in the early days.
FALSE. Bareknuckle boxing had rules, and trying to slander bareknuckle boxing, even with such sarcasm, by saying it had "no rules" is only cheapening the achievements of the bareknuckle champions. They were sportsmen, and the precursors to the modern-day champions.

If you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo, a total joke stoppage that is the EXCEPTION to the modern-day TKO, to glamorize bareknuckle boxing, on the other hand...don't make shit up like "bareknuckle boxing had no rules" to help prove it.

The lack of "brutality" in bareknuckle boxing is from the extremely small amount of punches thrown in a bareknuckle fight in comparison to a modern-day gloved fight.

Yes, a bareknuckle punch hurts worse, and can cripple you in one shot MUCH more easily than a gloved punch. That's the reason many bareknuckle fights ended with VERY few landed punches in comparison to the modern fights. A modern fighter, however, needs many more punches to fuck his opponent up beyond recognition, and he only has 12 (or 15) rounds to do it, as opposed to 50.

Besides, if you're going to use Calzaghe-Manfredo...I will use Morrison-Mercer, which is almost unarguably a bigger beatdown than any in bareknuckle history :good A guy getting trapped in the corner and flat-out mashed for 15+ unanswered punches is more brutal than a guy getting laid out with one shot.

I know the rules of boxing, whether if the Marquess of Queensberry Rules or the London Prize Ring Rules, etc., IMO, it´s crystal clear that in the time of Sullivan it was much more brutal, you can compare it when you look at the injuries the fighters of that time suffered with the likes the suffer today...

[amhlilhaus]

Really? I'd seriously like to see one of them :D Any good examples?

A common source of the "old-timers > new-school" argument is the myth of the extended fights, though.

And although a 50 round fight is interesting, some people just see the "50 round fight" and think "oh my god it was a total war that lasted for dayzzz!!" when those were clearly the exception, and most of those 50 rounds were nowhere near as intense/exciting/brutal as a round of boxing today.

they did fight longer, and theres also the fact they knew how to feint, shift, place their punches more accurately than guys do today, fought more often, had harder lives, etc etc. modern fighters are better in our minds because we see them in high def close camera work. the old style looks crude and amateurish to our eyes, but the film doesn't do them justice and rest assured a lot of those old timers would do just fine in our modern age.

the old timers used tried and true methods of training that modern guys did. they lifted weight, they hit the heavybag, they ran, they jumped rope, they sparred, the only thing I'm unaware of them using is a speed bag.

[Bad_Intentions]

Sullivan was racist, but that was normal back then, remember slaves were set free in the early 1860's (which all the white immigrants from those days were racist) and that's how there parents raised them, especially in the southern U.S

[RoccoMarciano]

Under what rule set?

I doubt that any fighter today would provide him with a serious challenge in a bare knuckle bout.

As do I.. You know a lot of people seem to forget the style changes between today and back in Sullivan's time. Of course Sullivan would have a hard time beating any current fighter using todays rule set... and any of todays fighters would have similar difficulties defeating Sullivan under the rules he fought under. Sullivan was one tough SOB under the rules he fought.. I mean, can you imagine the shock on the faces of today's fighters if a guy of Sullivan's calibre was to come at you with a pure wrestling move :lol:

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Sullivan may be considered crude using today's rule book, but I hardly think he was all that crude fighting under the rules that existed in his time.

[janitor]

Really? I'd seriously like to see one of them :D Any good examples?

A common source of the "old-timers > new-school" argument is the myth of the extended fights, though.

And although a 50 round fight is interesting, some people just see the "50 round fight" and think "oh my god it was a total war that lasted for dayzzz!!" when those were clearly the exception, and most of those 50 rounds were nowhere near as intense/exciting/brutal as a round of boxing today.

OK

A longer bout will tend to be fought at a slower pace and I must emphasize that the examples that I am about to give might be exceptional.

There were a number of lightweights around the turn of the century who were able to maintain modern workrates over 20 or even 45 rounds on film. Examples include Battling Nelson, Ad Wolgast and Joe Rivers.

Perhaps the most remarkable example is Bat Nelson who averaged an amazing 85 punches per round over the course of a 42 round fight against Ad Wlogast. Both of them ended up as basket cases and I suspect that this fight was the primary cause.

[joe33]

To all the guys saying sullivan was a racist,maybe you should take a look abut today in are own times,ad youll see shock horror racism aint something thats probaly ever gonna go away,just get the hell over it.

[rydersonthestorm]

I find it funny that some of you think they boxed at a proper modern pace, bare knuckle your hands would be destroyed after fighting at a modern pace for a few rounds never mind 80 etc.

[joe33]

I find it funny that some of you think they boxed at a proper modern pace, bare knuckle your hands would be destroyed after fighting at a modern pace for a few rounds never mind 80 etc.

Id like to agree with you,but i cant because im not to sure what your banging on about.
Are you trying to stick up for the old guys from the past,saying if they went 80 rounds back then,they could easily do the modern length?

[guilalah]

I look on Sullivan as a great heavyweight. I suspect his native assets were similar to Tysons. A great fighter 1880-1884, declined a touch, but really pulled himself together for the Kilrain fight. He had a lot of fights -- read Apollack's book! -- where he couldn't go all out for a KO (due to legal realities of the time). He was better suited to Queensbury fighting. The Sullivan of 1882 could crack with both hands, had very fast hands, knew where to punch, threw straight punches, was hard to hit, would laugh if you did hit him, was springy as a cat, had stamina, had the activity level of a smaller fighter, had confidence and composure.

[Bill1234]

I find it funny that some of you think they boxed at a proper modern pace, bare knuckle your hands would be destroyed after fighting at a modern pace for a few rounds never mind 80 etc.

Why do you think they started to wear gloves? Their hands were getting destroyed.

[apollack]

You may purchase John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion through any of the multiple online dealers. It is probably easiest to purchase through the publisher directly.

The direct link is

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Table of Contents and preface: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Or [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Preface only: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Dempsey1238]

That´s logical, otherwise you would collapse...

Than please explain Battling Nelson?? He had a high punch out put, EVEN OVER MOST OF TODAY's fighters, in his bout with Gans, 42 rounds. The film supports this.

[True Writer]

Under what rule set?

I doubt that any fighter today would provide him with a serious challenge in a bare knuckle bout.

This is a joke - he was a fat bastard. He would be koed buy any half decent middleweight today goves or no gloves.

[apollack]

Completely disagree.

Here is a sampling of the high praise given to Sullivan, all excerpts from my book. If you like this stuff, there's a lot more in the book:

Mike Donovan observed that Sullivan was “quick as a cat and very strong,” rushing at him “like a panther.” “In fact he was the strongest man I had ever met, and I had boxed nearly every big man of reputation up to that time, Paddy Ryan included, and was considered the cleverest man in the ring.”

After defeating Donaldson: “If the days of the prize ring were not gone by, Sullivan would stand at the head and front of the fraternity."

After one of his knockouts: , “Well, I have seen all from Hyer down to the present day, but none could have beaten that young fellow Sullivan."

After knocking out Paddy Ryan: “I have seen Tom Hyer in his best days, Morrissey and others in the ring; all, as you know, were good ones, but I am satisfied that Sullivan could lick any of them.”

"Sullivan won the fight by virtue of superior science and irresistible strength…. He cared nothing for Ryan’s blows, and his own hitting is so tremendous that it seems beyond the power of man to recover from the shock of one of his hands let out from the shoulder."

"One thing is certain, and that is that neither Mace or Sayers ever encountered so hard or so quick a hitter as is John L. Sullivan…. It was the writer’s fortune to see the fight between Heenan and Morrissey, and had Sullivan been on the boards that day as big, as capable, and as in as good condition as when he fought Paddy Ryan, it is my opinion that he could have whipped both of them, one after another. Those who think that he is not a thoroughly scienced man, are somewhat mistaken. He has a far better knowledge of the fistic art than either Heenan or Morrissey possessed. He is stronger than either, and unquestionably he is the hardest hitter known to the records of the ring."

"The superiority of Sullivan lies in his extraordinary nervous force and his altogether incomparable skill as a boxer.

In what does his extraordinary skill consist? In hitting as straight and almost as rapid as light; in the variety and readiness of his blows; in standing firmly on his feet and driving his whole weight and nervous force at the end of his fist, - a very rare and a very high quality in a boxer; in movements as quick and purposeful as the leap of a lion. He can ‘duck’ lower than any feather-weight boxer in America; he can strike more heavy blows in ten seconds than any other man in a minute, and he watches his opponent with a self-possession and calculation that do not flurry with excitement, but only flame into a ravening intensity to beat him down…

Other boxers begin by sparring; he begins by fighting – and he never ceases to fight. But from the first instant of the fight, Sullivan is as fierce, relentless, tireless as a cataract…. He does not waste ten seconds of the three minutes of each round.

And look at the odds he offers, and offers to all the world! ... Observe, he will not only defeat all comers, but he will defeat them in four rounds – in twelve minutes!"

"He is as lithe as a panther, and his rush is like an avalanche. His fists flash through the air like bolts of lightning, and his every movement is the perfection of grace."


“Whatever has been said in praise of Sullivan is not exaggerated.”

"He is about the most restless piece of humanity that we ever saw in the shape of a man. His every move conveys the idea of restlessness. He strikes to count, and fights to win. He goes at his opponent with a dash, hits out right and left, recovers his guard and strikes another smashing blow, then, jumping from the ground he rushes at his antagonist and follows him up, shooting out terrific blows and recovering himself with lighting rapidity."

“He can settle any man in the world, sure, and the bigger the man against him, the better it is for him. Let me give you a pointer. I was with him in Hot Springs when they picked a terrible big fellow for him to knock out. I felt of this fellow at the hotel, and I tell you he was something immense. He had the broadest shoulders of any man I ever saw, was as hard as iron, and weighed about 240 pounds. I told John of the kind of a fellow he had to meet. ‘Is he a big fellow?’ says John. ‘You can bet,’ says I. ‘He’s a stunner.’ ‘Then the bigger he is the harder he’ll fall,’ says John…. Well, he knocked that big fellow out in just two punches. ... …. I tell you that Sullivan thinks no more of knocking a man out than I do of eating an apple."

"You have heard of hundreds of men, when speaking of Sullivan, say, “He wins by brute strength,” and I have seldom seen a man who advanced the truth, which is that Sullivan is as clever as any man. His unquestioned ability as to being the hardest hitter ever seen has caused the overlooking of the fact that his blow is always planted where it will do the most good, either upon the jaw or jugular - again, it is certain that could an adversary so land his blow, Sullivan would fall as quickly as another, and yet having knocked out about sixty men, he has never been harmed. The truth is that Sullivan is a careful, scientific fighter…. Do I think his equal as a pugilist ever trod the earth? Certainly not…. Even in imagination the ancients never conceived such a hitter as Sullivan."

You should read what they said about him after he defeated Kilrain!

Joe Choynski thought that Sullivan would defeat Slavin, Goddard, and Jackson. "I think he'll land on Jackson right enough if he meets him. ... Personally, I wish he would fight Jackson, for I know how long the fight would last, and who would win it."
Choynski on Goddard: "I don’t think he’d have a ghost of a show with Sullivan. You see, it’s this way. Sullivan is quicker than I am, and he hits with terrible power. If I’d a tenth of Sullivan’s force I’d have beaten Goddard both times I fought him, but I hadn’t it. Now, it’s easy to figure it out. I think, honestly, that John would smash him down with very little trouble."

Corbett said: "I tell you that no one can whip Sullivan who is not as fast as I am. I am not so sure that he wouldn’t whip Peter Jackson, for Peter’s style would suit him a good deal better than mine. Peter would go and shy with him, and no man can do that with any hope of success."

After seeing Corbett-Sharkey, one observer said, "Sullivan in his good days was the man to have fought Sharkey. He would have knocked his head off."

After seeing Corbett-Jackson, "The general opinion was expressed that Sullivan in his best day could have made mighty small work of the pair of them in the one night."

The Times-Democrat once summarized: "Sullivan was one of the quickest big men that ever lived; that with all his aggressive ability, which had in reality not been overrated, he was quick as lightning at parrying, ducking, dodging and getting out of the way generally. While his tactics were never to unnecessarily delay a contest, he well knew when it was desirable to rush and when it was prudent to bide his time. In brief, Sullivan, in addition to being probably the hardest hitter that ever stood in a prize ring, was also one of the quickest of big men, a thoroughly scientific boxer by instinct as well as training, and without a superior as a ring general. In this way many boxers of skill and comparatively good sense were ignominiously defeated."

[MrSmall]

Shit, people THIRTY years ago were racists, people TODAY are racist, what's so strange about them being racist 100 years ago?

[kerrminator]

John Sullivan was boxings first superstar.He dominated the heavyweight scene for 10 years, during the time when it emerged from the seedy world of bare-knuckle prizefights to become a mainstream sport under Marquis of Queensberry rules.
John Lawrence Sullivan was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 15th october 1858. His Irish father was small of stature but very handy with his fists. John L inherited those skills in abundance. He scrapped his way through the best Boston had to offer, then became the state champion when he beat Dan Dwyer, the recognised holder of that title. It wasn't long before this KO specialist from New England, nicknamed the "Boston Strong Boy", was the talk of fight fans everywhere. He raised his profile even more when hemet John Flood in 1881. Flood, who was known as the"Bulls Head Terror", was thought to be the man who could bring Sullivan's inexorable progress to a halt. The two met on a barge anchored in the Hudson river. The contest was conducted under London Prize Ring Rules, which also allowed wrestling holds. Such contests were of unlimited duration, each round continuing until one man went down. A floored fighter had 30 seconds to come to his feet and failure to do so meant defeat. The Sullivan-Flood fight lasted 16 minutes, during which time the"Bulls Head Terror" had been put down on eight occasions. Flood's cornerhad seen enough and threw in the towel.
After taking a few more scalps, Sullivan earned himself a crack at America's recognised champion, Paddy Ryan. Ryan, a New Yorker who hailed from Tipperary, had won the title from Joe Goss in may 1880. The championship lineage of the previous 30 years hadn't always been totally pure. Some of the title claims in that time had been questionable. Sullivan was about to change all that.
On Feb 7th 1882, he took the crown from Ryan, needing just 10 minutes to finish the job. Having put Ryan down a number of times already, Sullivan ended proceedings with a trip-hammer right, his greatest weapon. The title and the $5,000 purse, were his. A new boxing era was born. Sullivan proceeded to milk his newly aquired status for all it was worth. An extrovert and a braggart, he toured the country, throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who fancied his chances of going four rounds with the champion. Some 50 men tried their hand. Only one is said to have claimed the $1,000 prize on offer, and he was a rugged pro who used his experience and every trick in the book simply to survive the allotted time.
Those vanquished by Sullivan during his travelling circus days do not feature in the record books. While his victims doubtless included many no-hopers, Sullivan must have faced the roughest, toughest bar-room brawlers every town had to offer. He cant be accused of being a sleeping champion, not in the early stages of his reign, at least. John was soon the idol of the masses. His exciting, all action fighting style, together with his charismatic personality, endeared him to a population only too keen to embrace a new sporting hero. By 1887, Sullivan's popularity was at its height. Boxing was the number one sport, with Sullivan its undisputed champion and star attraction

To coincide with his latest national tour, some of Boston's prominent citizens and sports fans decided to honour their city's favourite son with a trophy:a jewel-encrusted gold belt. It was inscribed with the words:"Presented to the Champion of Champions, John L. Sullivan, by the citizens of the United States, July 4, 1887". This was not the only belt in circulation, however. Richard K. Fox, publisher of the Police Gazzete, had also commisioned a belt to be made. This was awarded to his own heavyweight protege, a man named Jake Kilrain. Kilrain was a veteran Prize Fighter, one of the best men of his era, and Fox had issued a challenge to Sullivan to fight his man. When John turned him down, Fox responded by declaring Kilrain the champion, complete with new "championship" belt. Understandably, there was considerable needle between the two camps. When Sullivan was awarded his belt, he praised its superior craftsmanship and beauty compared with Kilrain's, which he disparagingly described as "a dog collar".
The ill-feeling would rumble on for two more years before Sullivan and Kilrain could settle the issue inside the ring. First, there was an extended tour to Europe, where Sullivan had one man in particular in his sights: Englands Charley Mitchell. Sullivan and Mitchell had met before, at Madison Square Garden in May 1883. England's top fighter had crossed the atlantic, making it known that he had come with the express purpose of knocking Sullivan out. He couldn't back up his words on that occasion, however. Mitchell had been knocked out of the ring in the second round, and floored again in the third, at which point the police intervened to prevent the challenger from taking any more punishment.
The bad blood between the two men was still in evidence five years later, when they met for a second time. The rematch took place near Chantilly, France, on the estate of Baron Rothschild. Their first encounter had been a glove fight ; this time it was a bare knuckle contest.

Mitchell did much better on this occasion, taking Sullivan 39 rounds before the contest was declared a draw. Both men claimed to have had the better of things, with Sullivan probably having the stronger claim. Mitchell had certainly avoided the champions heaviest punches, but his survival also involved underhand tactics. He had repeatedly gone to ground without being hit, frustrating Sullivan's efforts to finish him off.
Back in the USA, Sullivan finally agreed to a showdown with his other big rival, Jake Kilrain. It took place in Missisippi, on a baking hot day in July 1889. It was a bare knuckle-contest fought under the London Prize Ring Rules. It would be the last heavyweight championship fight conducted under such rules, and the two men made it a contest to remember. Two hours and 16 minutes after the pratogonists squared up to each other, Kilrain's corner threw in the towel(or his seconds threw in the sponge as it was called those day). Their man was out on his feet at the end of the 75 rounds that the fight had lasted. The battle of the two belts had been decided in the champions favour, but it had been a bruising attritional battle. It would be three years before Sullivan would put his title on the line again. In that time, the champion lived life to the full, and also set a precedent that many of his sucsessors would follow by taking to the stage. Apart from the boxing that was incorporated into his theatrical role, Sullivan fought only exhibition bouts during this three-year period. One of these matched him against James Corbett, the two men sparring for four rounds in full dress suits in May 1891. The following year, on sept 7th 1892, they met again, this time for real. Despite being a month short of his 34th birthday, unfit and grossley overweight, Sullivan went into the fight as hot favourite. But his 10-year, vice-like hold on the championship was about to be broken by a man who was younger, fitter and who elevated ringcraft to a completely new level.

[amhlilhaus]

This is a joke - he was a fat bastard. He would be koed buy any half decent middleweight today goves or no gloves.

candidate for best post of the year.

now come on, you obviously have never seen any pictures of him in his prime, and suggesting middleweights would beat him is beneath contempt. opinions are one's own, and should be respected to some degree but that statement's pulled out of your butt, no way to sugar coat it.

[True Writer]

OK maybe fat bastard is a bit much but looking at him I don't think he was in great shape. But I do think that today a decent middlewieght would ko him. Most of the guys he fought their records where useless.

[fg2227]

Is the book on him any good?

[JohnBKelly]

John L Sullivan was tough and skillful fighter. Nat Fleischer saw Sullivan and Ali in the flesh as well as everyone else in between. I don't remember Nat calling John a fat bum who could be taken out by a middleweight. So anybody who does knows fuck all about the sport.

Anybody who wins the undisputed heavyweight title and holds it for more than one defence can fight. Sullivan was the best in the world for ten years he was no patsy. A racist thug yes but nobody's whipping boy.

[amhlilhaus]

fleischer never saw sullivan fight. looking at his pictures in his prime I can't see how someone says he's not in shape. remember that in shape heavyweights up into the 1970's didn't always have a 'chiseled' phsyique that we nowadays equate with being in 'shape'.

adam pollack's book on sullivan deals exclusively with his career. it talks about his opponents, his exhibition tour and all his fights up to the corbett fight which he details in his book on corbett. if you enjoy reading about fights it's a great read, and frankly you shouldn't judge sullivan's career without referencing it, most of what you read in history books don't paint a accurate picture of these guys, and that goes for everyone not on film.

[janitor]

OK maybe fat bastard is a bit much but looking at him I don't think he was in great shape. But I do think that today a decent middlewieght would ko him. Most of the guys he fought their records where useless.

That is a gigantic asumption given that the records of all of his oponents are largley incomplete.

I entertained for a while the posibility that he was a bar room brawler who would get smashed by anybody from Corbett onwards. Close review of contemporary sources shows that this is clearly not the case.

Based on the testimony of fighters who bridged the two eras he seems to have been above the level of Corbett and Fitzsimmons and possibly on the same level as Jeffries.

[amhlilhaus]

like corbett said, no one could beat him who isn't as fast as I am. he also fought an old washed up version of sullivan, who in his prime would have been FASTER and in much better condition, the consensus thinking from everything I've ever read was corbett fought in the 'new' style and always would have ate sullivan's lunch. but reading sullivan's fight accounts and thinking about it, if he doesn't tire, and he doesn't get hurt because he's tired, corbett can't hurt him, in any fight with a duration corbett doesn't ko him, and sullivan would most likely chase him the whole fight, land more than he did in the title loss and the judges would most likely give him the decision, due to his aggressiveness and let's face it, the fact he was john l. sullivan, the most famous athlete of his time.