The Great John L. Sullivan

[HomicideHenry]

I am often surprised how so many fans and historians over-look John L. Sullivan.

He was virtually undefeated for over 20yrs. Defeated almost every American fighter in his weight class that was of the highest order, as well as having multiple exhibition tours through out The United Kingdom, beating every single man he faced.

It was once written that if John L. Sullivan's record was complete, as some fights he had were not documented, he would of had 200 KO's to his credit (exhibitions & contests alike), which would have surpassed Archie Moore's record easy.

He dominated both the BARE KNUCKLE and GLOVED era's. Despite the rules being changed, he adapted quickly and still beat all-comers. Forget that he drew the color-line for once, and look at the men he faced:

1.) Paddy Ryan
2.) Charlie Mitchell
3.) Jack Burke
4.) Dominick McCaffery
5.) Joe Goss
6.) John Donaldson
7.) Steve Taylor
8.) Jimmy Elliot
9.) Joe Coburn
10.) Herbert Slade
11.) Jake Kilrain
12.) Joe Choynski
13.) "Nonpariel" Jack Dempsey
14.) Tom Sharkey
15.) Jim Jefferies

These are men he either fought under the LONDON PRIZE RING RULES, MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY or in exhibitions---he kept fighting until 1905 in exhibition bouts.

Jim Jefferies said that no man was better than John L. Sullivan, after he faced "The Boston Strong Boy" in an exhibition in 1900.

Everyone from Paddy Ryan onward said that Sullivan, when he hit you, was like a telegraph pole hitting you in the face. This man had the power to break a man's jaw with a single blow. He was fast and threw combinations and could take punishment like few have ever.

Mind you the rules were so much different back then, you wasn't credited with a knock out victory unless you genuinely knocked a man out---there was no TKO's, and if you were too injured to continued there was no WIN there was just a NO CONTEST.

If the rules were how they are now back then, Sullivan would have been even far more greater than the legend he is now...and that's almost unimaginable to fathom. No he wasn't a man of boxing defense and style, he went out to do business and his punches were never wasted, they were always perfectly timed.

If you look at his record here on this site you would wonder why I am talking up the guy as his record shows him facing men with very little boxing matches to their record---but mind you this site is all about the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY and hell even the fighters he fought with little or no experience in the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY rules, those very same men fought hundreds of bouts under the LONDON PRIZE RING rules.

He had the endurance to go 20 rounds easy, hell he fought Jake Kilrain for over three hours in a 75 round bout (London Prize Ring rules).

I know I talk up alot of fighters, like Ali and Marciano and Dempsey and others...but my personal favorite is John L. Sullivan, and hell I have to agree with the old-timers, John L. Sullivan probably could have whooped Joe Louis and have enough to decision Joe Frazier all in the same night.

Here is a link to some references to John L. Sullivan, as well as a few other things about him and the times and the contenders of then:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/a ... llivan.htm

[Collins2000]

I am often surprised how so many fans and historians over-look John L. Sullivan.

He was virtually undefeated for over 20yrs. Defeated almost every American fighter in his weight class that was of the highest order, as well as having multiple exhibition tours through out The United Kingdom, beating every single man he faced.

It was once written that if John L. Sullivan's record was complete, as some fights he had were not documented, he would of had 200 KO's to his credit (exhibitions & contests alike), which would have surpassed Archie Moore's record easy.

He dominated both the BARE KNUCKLE and GLOVED era's. Despite the rules being changed, he adapted quickly and still beat all-comers. Forget that he drew the color-line for once, and look at the men he faced:

1.) Paddy Ryan
2.) Charlie Mitchell
3.) Jack Burke
4.) Dominick McCaffery
5.) Joe Goss
6.) John Donaldson
7.) Steve Taylor
8.) Jimmy Elliot
9.) Joe Coburn
10.) Herbert Slade
11.) Jake Kilrain
12.) Joe Choynski
13.) "Nonpariel" Jack Dempsey
14.) Tom Sharkey
15.) Jim Jefferies

These are men he either fought under the LONDON PRIZE RING RULES, MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY or in exhibitions---he kept fighting until 1905 in exhibition bouts.

Jim Jefferies said that no man was better than John L. Sullivan, after he faced "The Boston Strong Boy" in an exhibition in 1900.

Everyone from Paddy Ryan onward said that Sullivan, when he hit you, was like a telegraph pole hitting you in the face. This man had the power to break a man's jaw with a single blow. He was fast and threw combinations and could take punishment like few have ever.

Mind you the rules were so much different back then, you wasn't credited with a knock out victory unless you genuinely knocked a man out---there was no TKO's, and if you were too injured to continued there was no WIN there was just a NO CONTEST.

If the rules were how they are now back then, Sullivan would have been even far more greater than the legend he is now...and that's almost unimaginable to fathom. No he wasn't a man of boxing defense and style, he went out to do business and his punches were never wasted, they were always perfectly timed.

If you look at his record here on this site you would wonder why I am talking up the guy as his record shows him facing men with very little boxing matches to their record---but mind you this site is all about the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY and hell even the fighters he fought with little or no experience in the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY rules, those very same men fought hundreds of bouts under the LONDON PRIZE RING rules.

He had the endurance to go 20 rounds easy, hell he fought Jake Kilrain for over three hours in a 75 round bout (London Prize Ring rules).

I know I talk up alot of fighters, like Ali and Marciano and Dempsey and others...but my personal favorite is John L. Sullivan, and hell I have to agree with the old-timers, John L. Sullivan probably could have whooped Joe Louis and have enough to decision Joe Frazier all in the same night.
Here is a link to some references to John L. Sullivan, as well as a few other things about him and the times and the contenders of then:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/a ... llivan.htm

Not sure that many old-timers, unless they'd been at the cherry brandy, would make that claim...

[c.millss]

Comparing Sullivan to Lewis is like comparing steam to gasoline. I admire your knowledge of boxing history though, and mean no disrespect. My only argument would consider the chance of competition colored fighters had against Sullivan. And I am referring to their lack of there of.

[-KOKid-]

I consider Sullivan to belong to the bare-knuckle era. Only a very few of his actual fights were fought with Queensberry rules. Placing him in the London Prize Ring Rules era favours his legacy greatly and I would easily consider him the very best bare-knuckler of all-time.
Comparing bare-knuckle to Queensberry is like comparing football to basket ball. It's was a different game entirely.

That said, as I much as I would favor modern fighters over bare-knucklers by Queensberry rules, it's the complete opposite the other way around.
Like I said, two different games entirely.

-KOKid-

[dr_devious]

Yes. Sullivan's era was completely different and it was a different game altogether. However I think guys like Sullivan, Corbett, Jackson, Mitchell etc by dominating their era demonstrated enough talent to suggest they would be successful if they were born in the modern era, though Corbett and Mitchell in lower weight divisions.

[HomicideHenry]

From what I know of Sullivan was challenged by only one Black heavyweight in his era, and that was "The Black Prince" Peter Jackson.

By that time there was a boxing law that prohibited whites from facing black men, I believe cus many scientists actually put in that it was an unfair anthropological advantage blacks had over white men cus their skulls were thicker or something to that extent.

Sullivan nontheless told Jackson that he would never fight a Negro, and dishonor his sport if he ever lost to a black man----myself I don't believe Sullivan was entirely racist, because he had the same attitude to foreigners---as why he only did exhibitions in the USA and the UK.

He being a man of Irish decent, and the regular cat calls against the Irish were "An Irishman is a person turned inside out" or "If an Irishman kills a person, hang the Irishman." So I am sure Sullivan didnt duck Jackson for racist reasons, but for the feeling that he truly did believe if he did so he would let his country, if not his sport down.

When he lost to title to Corbett he said "Least I lost to a fellow American".
And when Jack Johnson beat James J. Jefferies who was the first man to shake Johnson's hand? John L. Sullivan.

As for Peter Jackson, though he was well passed his prime, James J. Jefferies fought "The Black Prince" and won by KO in the 3rd round. So it is my belief that even though Jefferies was the proclaimed "Great White Hope" that wasn't his bellief...but rather he was urged by America and the press to become a racist hero.

Myself, if Sullivan was in today's era of Heavyweights, he would fair very well---as would most every other bare knuckle fighter back then. They were tough and had the endurance to go all out for 40 rounds---Rocky Marciano was said to have trained like a bare-knuckle fighter to have the endurance to give everything he got in 15 rounds, when he had the stamina to go another 15 easy.

Sullivan, if he was trained with the bare-knuckle style as well as the methods of today---I truly believe he would be probably the most dominate force in the Heavyweight division.

He was truly super-natural.

[The Great John L]

Only a very few of his actual fights were fought with Queensberry rules.

Actually, I beleive he fought more gloved bouts than bare knuckle fights. If he had fought most f his recorded fights bareknuckle he wouldn't have had nearly as many fights since the damage inflicted on combatants in bareknuckle fights was usually pretty severe, even for the winner.

Of course, that depends upon what your definition of "actual fights" is.

[dr_devious]

Nicolai Valuev has been undefeated for almost as long as Sullivan has, and he's beaten better competition.

You're not back onto the Valuev is better than Sullivan thread again are you Dec?

[barry]

He doesn't know any better!

[Ambling Alp]

From what I know of Sullivan was challenged by only one Black heavyweight in his era, and that was "The Black Prince" Peter Jackson.

By that time there was a boxing law that prohibited whites from facing black men, I believe cus many scientists actually put in that it was an unfair anthropological advantage blacks had over white men cus their skulls were thicker or something to that extent.

Sullivan nontheless told Jackson that he would never fight a Negro, and dishonor his sport if he ever lost to a black man----myself I don't believe Sullivan was entirely racist, because he had the same attitude to foreigners---as why he only did exhibitions in the USA and the UK.

He being a man of Irish decent, and the regular cat calls against the Irish were "An Irishman is a person turned inside out" or "If an Irishman kills a person, hang the Irishman." So I am sure Sullivan didnt duck Jackson for racist reasons, but for the feeling that he truly did believe if he did so he would let his country, if not his sport down.

When he lost to title to Corbett he said "Least I lost to a fellow American".
And when Jack Johnson beat James J. Jefferies who was the first man to shake Johnson's hand? John L. Sullivan.

As for Peter Jackson, though he was well passed his prime, James J. Jefferies fought "The Black Prince" and won by KO in the 3rd round. So it is my belief that even though Jefferies was the proclaimed "Great White Hope" that wasn't his bellief...but rather he was urged by America and the press to become a racist hero.

Myself, if Sullivan was in today's era of Heavyweights, he would fair very well---as would most every other bare knuckle fighter back then. They were tough and had the endurance to go all out for 40 rounds---Rocky Marciano was said to have trained like a bare-knuckle fighter to have the endurance to give everything he got in 15 rounds, when he had the stamina to go another 15 easy.

Sullivan, if he was trained with the bare-knuckle style as well as the methods of today---I truly believe he would be probably the most dominate force in the Heavyweight division.

He was truly super-natural.

Actually,t here was was another highly regarded black heavyweight in Sullivan's era; George Godfrey. (Not to be confused with the George Godfrey who fought in the 1920's and 1930's).

George wasn't considered quite as good as Jackson, but he certainly a top contender for several years. Sullivan probably would have beaten Godfrey, but Godfrey did deserve a title shot.

[surf-bat]

I am often surprised how so many fans and historians over-look John L. Sullivan.

He was virtually undefeated for over 20yrs. Defeated almost every American fighter in his weight class that was of the highest order, as well as having multiple exhibition tours through out The United Kingdom, beating every single man he faced.

It was once written that if John L. Sullivan's record was complete, as some fights he had were not documented, he would of had 200 KO's to his credit (exhibitions & contests alike), which would have surpassed Archie Moore's record easy.

He dominated both the BARE KNUCKLE and GLOVED era's. Despite the rules being changed, he adapted quickly and still beat all-comers. Forget that he drew the color-line for once, and look at the men he faced:

1.) Paddy Ryan
2.) Charlie Mitchell
3.) Jack Burke
4.) Dominick McCaffery
5.) Joe Goss
6.) John Donaldson
7.) Steve Taylor
8.) Jimmy Elliot
9.) Joe Coburn
10.) Herbert Slade
11.) Jake Kilrain
12.) Joe Choynski
13.) "Nonpariel" Jack Dempsey
14.) Tom Sharkey
15.) Jim Jefferies

These are men he either fought under the LONDON PRIZE RING RULES, MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY or in exhibitions---he kept fighting until 1905 in exhibition bouts.

Jim Jefferies said that no man was better than John L. Sullivan, after he faced "The Boston Strong Boy" in an exhibition in 1900.

Everyone from Paddy Ryan onward said that Sullivan, when he hit you, was like a telegraph pole hitting you in the face. This man had the power to break a man's jaw with a single blow. He was fast and threw combinations and could take punishment like few have ever.

Mind you the rules were so much different back then, you wasn't credited with a knock out victory unless you genuinely knocked a man out---there was no TKO's, and if you were too injured to continued there was no WIN there was just a NO CONTEST.

If the rules were how they are now back then, Sullivan would have been even far more greater than the legend he is now...and that's almost unimaginable to fathom. No he wasn't a man of boxing defense and style, he went out to do business and his punches were never wasted, they were always perfectly timed.

If you look at his record here on this site you would wonder why I am talking up the guy as his record shows him facing men with very little boxing matches to their record---but mind you this site is all about the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY and hell even the fighters he fought with little or no experience in the MARQUIS OF QUEENSBURY rules, those very same men fought hundreds of bouts under the LONDON PRIZE RING rules.

He had the endurance to go 20 rounds easy, hell he fought Jake Kilrain for over three hours in a 75 round bout (London Prize Ring rules).

I know I talk up alot of fighters, like Ali and Marciano and Dempsey and others...but my personal favorite is John L. Sullivan, and hell I have to agree with the old-timers, John L. Sullivan probably could have whooped Joe Louis and have enough to decision Joe Frazier all in the same night.

Here is a link to some references to John L. Sullivan, as well as a few other things about him and the times and the contenders of then:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/a ... llivan.htm

I think it's cuz it is really hard to rank him. So little is known about the fighters of his era compared to say Joe Louis' or Dempsey's. I rank him highly.

[-KOKid-]

Only a very few of his actual fights were fought with Queensberry rules.

Actually, I beleive he fought more gloved bouts than bare knuckle fights. If he had fought most f his recorded fights bareknuckle he wouldn't have had nearly as many fights since the damage inflicted on combatants in bareknuckle fights was usually pretty severe, even for the winner.

Of course, that depends upon what your definition of "actual fights" is.

Well, it's about six years since I read the Sullivan book, so I've forgotten most of the details.
Weren't these gloved fights fought with so called "skin-tight gloves"?
The use of those were fairly common during the late bare-knuckle era, but still seen as bare-knuckle bouts.

Anyway, the difference between bare-knuckle and Queensberry eras is not the use of skin-tight gloves or not, but the set of rules used for the bout.
Sullivan certainly fought more bouts under the London Prize Ring Rules than he did Queensberry. I say that's puts him in the bare-knuckle era, not Queensberry era.
Let me know what you think.

-KOKid-

[Chuck1052]

I think that it is possible that John L. Sullivan had more
Marquis of Queensberry bouts than London Prize Ring
bouts, but I wonder about the short duration of the
former. In other words, Sullivan didn't have any
seasoning in the long-distance bouts under the
Marquis of Queensberry Rules before fighting Jim
Corbett, who DID gain that type of previous
experience while facing Joe Choynski and Peter
Jackson. By the way, I think that Peter Jackson
would have beaten Sullivan in a Marquis of
Queensberry bout, too.

- Chuck Johnston

[JC]

1.) Paddy Ryan
2.) Charlie Mitchell
3.) Jack Burke
4.) Dominick McCaffery
5.) Joe Goss
6.) John Donaldson
7.) Steve Taylor
8.) Jimmy Elliot
9.) Joe Coburn
10.) Herbert Slade
11.) Jake Kilrain
12.) <b>Joe Choynski</b>
13.) <b>"Nonpariel" Jack Dempsey</b>
14.) <b>Tom Sharkey</b>
15.) <b>Jim Jefferies</b>

I was not aware he fought any of the last four guys, are you sure?

[The Great John L]

I think that it is possible that John L. Sullivan had more
Marquis of Queensberry bouts than London Prize Ring
bouts, but I wonder about the short duration of the
former. In other words, Sullivan didn't have any
seasoning in the long-distance bouts under the
Marquis of Queensberry Rules before fighting Jim
Corbett, who DID gain that type of previous
experience while facing Joe Choynski and Peter
Jackson....

- Chuck Johnston

YesI beleive you are correct. Sullivan popularized the MQ fights, but they seemed to be all of short duration, another reason why he liked them.

[Ambling Alp]

1.) Paddy Ryan
2.) Charlie Mitchell
3.) Jack Burke
4.) Dominick McCaffery
5.) Joe Goss
6.) John Donaldson
7.) Steve Taylor
8.) Jimmy Elliot
9.) Joe Coburn
10.) Herbert Slade
11.) Jake Kilrain
12.) <b>Joe Choynski</b>
13.) <b>"Nonpariel" Jack Dempsey</b>
14.) <b>Tom Sharkey</b>
15.) <b>Jim Jefferies</b>

I was not aware he fought any of the last four guys, are you sure?

He is counting sparring/exhibitions. He never fought any of those 4 in a real bout.