could guys like john sullivan, fitzimmons, corbett, ........

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

could some of the old heavyweights like corbett, sullivan, peter jackson. tommy bburns, marvin hart, , jeffries , fitzimmons

did these guys have enough skill and power to compete with some of the top big heayweights in the modern era.
what do u think ????

its hard to say with sullivan because he fought mostly without marques of queensbury and used to get points for wreslting other guys down.

i hear guys like larry merchant and teedy brenner say they dont think these guys can compete with the 70s or 80s or 90s bigger heavyweights.


barry wanna respond to this one???

[Rory McCloskey]

nahh.. i see these guys as just being really good fighters.. i doubt they were hard trained skilled boxers..i think its hard to tell if theyd be any good but i dont think that at the turn of the century boxing was what it was in say the 70's or 30's even. boxers were more fighters rather then skilled/finess boxers until jack johnson and jack dempsey came around

[Manos de Oro]

nahh.. i see these guys as just being really good fighters.. i doubt they were hard trained skilled boxers..i think its hard to tell if theyd be any good but i dont think that at the turn of the century boxing was what it was in say the 70's or 30's even. boxers were more fighters rather then skilled/finess boxers until jack johnson and jack dempsey came around

Do you know about guys like Mike Donovan and Jem Mace?

One general point: Bernard Hopkins seems to take the same approach to physical culturing as Ruby Bob, as well as doing lots and lots of subtle things the majority of people watching don't pick up on. Many 'old school' things.
He's the Undisputed Middleweight Champion and attempts to make his 21st defence of the 'world' title later tonight... at the age of 40.

On the opposite end of the 'old school in the modern day' ladder you have James Toney - an overweight, overblown middleweight, who is only a midget heavyweight at 5ft 9inches.
He actually won a 'world' heavyweight title recently and is considered a threat to the best in the division.

It's not until you've followed boxing a while it clicks in - boxing is a skill sport.

[barry]

Absolutely they could compete and probably win. Thoise guys were true students of the game and most really worked hard to perfect punches like a jab and straight right, which as I have mentioned before as Winky Wright showed against Trinidad...a great jab and a good straight right is all any fighter really needs to win a match! It would be more difficult for guys like Sullivan who were primarily brawlers who relied on strength instead of science and skill!

[Manos de Oro]

Agreed, Sullivan kept his right hand down tight by his chest (I think?) and most of the skill aspect of his game came from judging the distance before he could let go.

By all accounts, though, he had a HOF calibre right hand (I remember seeing a film of him in old age and the bone was all bent at the wrist). And when it came to getting rough and slugging... he was the real deal. You'd have to give him a chance due to this, but the fact remains he wasn't all that interested in dedicating himself to training and against a mover (see Corbett vs. Fitzsimmons, he moves like a dancer) who boxed, he came unstuck. Though it's worth remembering he was coming in after having been involved in a 75 round war and had been inactive a while.

Like barry says, the art of straight punching was taken to a level, as was the sweet science in general. Don't fall into the trap of imagining these fighters walking about in black and white in real life and making fistcuff poses while wearing tights. If you read the things they wrote it reveals them as finely tuned, dedicated athletes who put way, way more thought and understanding into the technical side of boxing than fighters of modern times.

[Manos de Oro]

Something else you might want to consider:

Boxing in the early days was more like K1/MMA is just now, with the top fighters actually fighting each other regularly. That's why some great fighters can have chequered records. That is also why people rate the likes of Bob Ftizsimmons and Joe Gans so high - getting a long unbeaten streak going in that sort of competitive climate was special.

[barry]

A real good fight report to read about Sullivan is the bout that he had against John Flood on a barge in New York. It speaks volumes as to how much Sullivan was not only respected, but also feared as Flood was the leader of roughhouse gang and all of his boys were on the barge with pistols, knives and other weapons, just like you would see in Scorcese's "Gangs of New York," and they pretty much kept the entire sporting crowd from Boston from entering on the barge and there was no way that their man was going to lose, but lose he did as Sullivan gave him a brutal beating, but none of Flood's roughnecks tried to interfere and when the bout was over, there was no outward sore feelings expressed, which for that time was really remarkable as often times if a fighter beat the crowd favorite he would have to get the hell out of dodge quick before the ringside roughs killed them. Of course versus Flood, John L. was young and just coming up...Paddy Ryan, the heavyweight champ at the time, was on board and Sullivan taunted him pretty good telling Ryan he could expect to recieve the same kind punishment as was dealt out to Flood!

[dnahar32]

I think Jeffries and Peter Jackson would not only compete, but they would whip all of today's heavyweights. We're talking 200-215lbs but with greatly superior skills than any of the fighters today in the HW division.

Corbett is like a poor man's Tunney. A master boxer who beat all the greats of his time except Jeffries (including Kilrain, Choynski, Sharkey, and Mitchell). But at 180lbs and without great power, he would have to avoid being caught to win aginst today's bigger heavies. But he would beat Byrd, even giving 30 pounds.

Marvin Hart was a caretaker champ who wasn't very good then, and wouldn't be now. How he beat Jack Johnson is beyond me. Burns was better but when he fought Johnson he did not win even one second of their 14-round fight. Neither would do anything today.

[barry]

In my opinion, one of the biggest advantages of those old-timers compared to today is overall toughness and conditioning! Coiuld you imagine if a heavyweight today even had to go 15 rounds, much less the 20+ rounds that the old-timers often fought.

[KOJOE90]

Cream allways rises to the top.

[JC]

In my opinion, one of the biggest advantages of those old-timers compared to today is overall toughness and conditioning! Coiuld you imagine if a heavyweight today even had to go 15 rounds, much less the 20+ rounds that the old-timers often fought.

Thats true and also the regularity with which they fought meant they had far greater ring experience. I think this is one reason why today fighters such as Hopkins and Wright have come to dominate their divisions at a late age.

[Ambling Alp]

Some of the old-timers would have been competitive, and some wouldn't have. We are in an extremely weak era in heavyweight boxing right now. Jeffries and Jackson could beat people like Byrd, Ruiz,Klitscko etc. Corbett would have to add a little bulk but he would be pretty successful. He was certainly more skilled than todays heavyweights.
Burns was too small, Hart just wasn't good enough. Fitzsimmons would be too small for heavyweight, but could be competiotve at light-heavyweight.With Sullivan it's hard to say. There's not much to go on. He would probably have a puncher's chance against todays top heavyweights.

[witherspoon]

This thread is truly heart-warming. As a six year old, I was drawn into boxing by a young Tyson, and started reading up on Louis, Dempsey, Johnson, Sullivan. I became more captivated by the stories of these old-timers than I was by Tyson.Whatever you care to say about their skill level or size, 100, 80, 70 years on we are still respecting them. What will be said about Lennox Lewis in 100 years?