Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

I am a historian who attempts to do my best here, I can state I don't operate with agenda or bias in dealing with fighters.
I try & use my own option as little as possible here in the argument but I am force to state a call in judgments at times here.

As we take a look at John L Sullivan & the heavyweight Scene 6 months after the Kilrain vs Sullivan fight in July 1889

It kicked off in Feb 1890 with Kilrain vs Corbett at a time when Sullivan should have been the replacement for Kilrain in this fight...

What was Sullivan going to do with the current heavyweight scene? I will try my own personal best estimations of the results.
As This era is my wheelhouse & I feel I can provide some clarity hopefully.

nobleart1978
Super Lightweight
Posts: 711
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 16:18

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by nobleart1978 »

He was the best of his era and that is all we can say for certain. However, we must take into account the fact that Sullivan's best years were under the rules of The London Prize Ring (bare knuckle).

Sullivan was a very tough, rough handful in his prime according to contemporary reports. However, he liked a drink and was not too keen on fighting under Marquis of Queensberry Rules.

All we can do is summise. He grew up in far tougher times than today's fighters that is for sure. If he could be sent back to us in a time machine and, most importantly, if he was willing to adapt to how boxers "box" today, then that innate toughness would still be there in him and he would, in my opinion, have been just as great today as he was back then.

Allied to his charisma as well, he would have undoubtedly been a superstar. :bag:
Ambling Alp II
Middleweight
Posts: 13727
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Agree with most of that.
He is hard to rate. Almost all of his fights were against guys that were not heavyweights, or not that good or not under Marquis of Queensbury Rules. He did have more fights with gloves that many people may realize, but again many were against less than stellar competition.

What we can surmise is that he had to have been tough, had great stamina, and at least a decent chin.
The Corbett fight also gives us a clue. He lost by KO in the 21st round. By all reports, the fight was mostly one-sided.
However, Sullivan did score knockdown (which strangely is usually not mentioned) and had Corbett is some trouble at least in that round.
He was also 33 years old, and had not fought in three years. Just making it to the 21st round shows that he had to have at least some ability.

Where to rate him? My best guess is a little behind Corbett and Fitzsimmons. He should be a little ahead of weaker champions that followed him like Hart, Burns and Willard.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13654
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by elmersalsa »

John L. Sullivan was one of the most overrated and racist fighters ever. Talking about overrated. This man held the World Heavyweight Title for 10 years without ever fighting a black man.

Peter Jackson, a black fighter from the US Virgin Islands was the best heavyweight and perhaps the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade.
damage
Super Lightweight
Posts: 298
Joined: 07 Feb 2016, 05:16

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by damage »

elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 12:37 John L. Sullivan was one of the most overrated and racist fighters ever. Talking about overrated. This man held the World Heavyweight Title for 10 years without ever fighting a black man.

Peter Jackson, a black fighter from the US Virgin Islands was the best heavyweight and perhaps the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade.
Joe Louis was the same, he fought all them years & never boxed a Chinese man.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13654
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by elmersalsa »

damage wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 14:14
elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 12:37 John L. Sullivan was one of the most overrated and racist fighters ever. Talking about overrated. This man held the World Heavyweight Title for 10 years without ever fighting a black man.

Peter Jackson, a black fighter from the US Virgin Islands was the best heavyweight and perhaps the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade.
Joe Louis was the same, he fought all them years & never boxed a Chinese man.
China never practiced boxing until now. Black boxers were around John L days. He refused to fight any blacks.
Billy Tully
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 748
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 07:25

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Billy Tully »

elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 17:42
damage wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 14:14
elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 12:37 John L. Sullivan was one of the most overrated and racist fighters ever. Talking about overrated. This man held the World Heavyweight Title for 10 years without ever fighting a black man.

Peter Jackson, a black fighter from the US Virgin Islands was the best heavyweight and perhaps the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade.
Joe Louis was the same, he fought all them years & never boxed a Chinese man.
China never practiced boxing until now. Black boxers were around John L days. He refused to fight any blacks.
Your views would be as strange to him in the 1800s as his are to you now.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13654
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by elmersalsa »

Billy Tully wrote: 18 Jan 2025, 16:07
elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 17:42
damage wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 14:14

Joe Louis was the same, he fought all them years & never boxed a Chinese man.
China never practiced boxing until now. Black boxers were around John L days. He refused to fight any blacks.
Your views would be as strange to him in the 1800s as his are to you now.
Why he never fought a great black fighter like Peter Jackson? Was he petrified of Jackson?
gilgamesh
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 40666
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by gilgamesh »

Sullivan is the first Boxer that comes to your mind when you think Great Bareknuckle Boxing Champions. So he's got that going for him.

Realistically with all the guys that have come since him, I doubt he'd make the all time Top 30 anymore. Largely due to the fact that the sport he competed in was almost entirely different from the Boxing we know today in so many ways.

He was undoubtedly a tough man, and the fact that we're still talking about 130 plus years after his final recorded bout show's what an impact he made on the culture of the World, and his chosen Profession.
p4p1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5639
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 07:43

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by p4p1 »

nobleart1978 wrote: 14 Jan 2025, 11:56 He was the best of his era and that is all we can say for certain. However, we must take into account the fact that Sullivan's best years were under the rules of The London Prize Ring (bare knuckle).

Sullivan was a very tough, rough handful in his prime according to contemporary reports. However, he liked a drink and was not too keen on fighting under Marquis of Queensberry Rules.

All we can do is summise. He grew up in far tougher times than today's fighters that is for sure. If he could be sent back to us in a time machine and, most importantly, if he was willing to adapt to how boxers "box" today, then that innate toughness would still be there in him and he would, in my opinion, have been just as great today as he was back then.

Allied to his charisma as well, he would have undoubtedly been a superstar. :bag:
Well that's not true. It is thanks to John L gloved boxing took off. He only fight bare knuckle because he essentially had to, to be recognised as the heavyweight champ. Most of his fights were with gloves. Sullivan preferred gloves, timed rounds and shorter fights because he believed (correctly) that it was a better spectacle and had more chance of being completely legal thus generating more money for himself and others.

The original MSQ is referred to as the house that John L built because he fought there often, under MoQ rules normally over 4 rounds offering any man that could last those 4 rounds money.
Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

It's noted also that Bareknuckle fights are 1 minute rounds with 30 second rest. Hence 105 rounds type's of fights which include wrestling not just boxing.

Big difference from a gloved fight
p4p1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5639
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 07:43

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by p4p1 »

Benny The Kid wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 15:02 It's noted also that Bareknuckle fights are 1 minute rounds with 30 second rest. Hence 105 rounds type's of fights which include wrestling not just boxing.

Big difference from a gloved fight
I can't find much on 1 minute rounds. I'm not disputing it, I just can't find it in the LPR or Broughton Rules.
I have always read that rounds ended when someone was knocked down or cut, but as you said there was wrestling so being taken down, tripped or taking a knee would also end a round.
I can't imagine as a spectator the fights were any good past the 35-45 minute mark.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8090
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Controversial »

Is O’Sullivan any different to the blokes who take part in unlicensed street fights or fought in the booths decades ago?
Ambling Alp II
Middleweight
Posts: 13727
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Very different. He had a varied career. Fought bareknuckle fights. Fought fights with gloves. Fought some top guys of the time. Also went on long tours and literally fought volunteers from the crowd night after night. Also had sparring partners that he sparred with in front of crowds on tours.
Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

p4p1 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 22:49
Benny The Kid wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 15:02 It's noted also that Bareknuckle fights are 1 minute rounds with 30 second rest. Hence 105 rounds type's of fights which include wrestling not just boxing.

Big difference from a gloved fight
I can't find much on 1 minute rounds. I'm not disputing it, I just can't find it in the LPR or Broughton Rules.
I have always read that rounds ended when someone was knocked down or cut, but as you said there was wrestling so being taken down, tripped or taking a knee would also end a round.
I can't imagine as a spectator the fights were any good past the 35-45 minute mark.
This information is right out of two major bare knuckle fights. Kilrain-sullivan & Kilrain-jem smith.

So i would assume it was all the same as i said that's how they get 106 rounds (so many) also it's noted that when kilrain was taking a knee in the sullivan fight he only had another 20 secs or so to survive the round.
p4p1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5639
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 07:43

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by p4p1 »

Benny The Kid wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 14:42
p4p1 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 22:49
Benny The Kid wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 15:02 It's noted also that Bareknuckle fights are 1 minute rounds with 30 second rest. Hence 105 rounds type's of fights which include wrestling not just boxing.

Big difference from a gloved fight
I can't find much on 1 minute rounds. I'm not disputing it, I just can't find it in the LPR or Broughton Rules.
I have always read that rounds ended when someone was knocked down or cut, but as you said there was wrestling so being taken down, tripped or taking a knee would also end a round.
I can't imagine as a spectator the fights were any good past the 35-45 minute mark.
This information is right out of two major bare knuckle fights. Kilrain-sullivan & Kilrain-jem smith.

So i would assume it was all the same as i said that's how they get 106 rounds (so many) also it's noted that when kilrain was taking a knee in the sullivan fight he only had another 20 secs or so to survive the round.
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Jake_ ... ._Sullivan

In the thirty-eighth session, which lasted four and a half minutes, Kilrain continued to retreat until the referee, acting on repeated appeals from Sullivan, told the challenger that he must stand up and fight. He had no authority to issue this command under the rules, and Kilrain. was plainly within his rights. Sullivan had no just grievance. If he could not catch his man the burden was on him. But Kilrain showed his spirit again by acting as best he could on the order, in spite of the discouraging hostility of the crowd. He fought into a clinch and went down. The tide continued Sullivan's way for the next five rounds, claims of fouls on both sides being ignored.

I’m still not convinced about these one minute rounds.
1718025
Minimumweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 02 Sep 2024, 08:38

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by 1718025 »

damage wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 14:14
elmersalsa wrote: 17 Jan 2025, 12:37 John L. Sullivan was one of the most overrated and racist fighters ever. Talking about overrated. This man held the World Heavyweight Title for 10 years without ever fighting a black man.

Peter Jackson, a black fighter from the US Virgin Islands was the best heavyweight and perhaps the best fighter pound per pound of the 1880s decade.
Joe Louis was the same, he fought all them years & never boxed a Chinese man.
What Chinese heavyweights were good enough at that time?
Bladder
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1387
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 20:00

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Bladder »

p4p1 wrote: 25 Jan 2025, 10:31
I’m still not convinced about these one minute rounds.
You're right, it's complete nonsense, a round ended when a man went down, which quite often was both of them while grappling.
A round could last ten seconds or ten minutes.
The 106-round fight between Kilrain and Smith that has been mentioned, only a handful of rounds lasted a minute or longer, most of them were twenty seconds or less.
Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

Bladder wrote: 28 Jan 2025, 12:00
p4p1 wrote: 25 Jan 2025, 10:31
I’m still not convinced about these one minute rounds.
You're right, it's complete nonsense, a round ended when a man went down, which quite often was both of them while grappling.
A round could last ten seconds or ten minutes.
The 106-round fight between Kilrain and Smith that has been mentioned, only a handful of rounds lasted a minute or longer, most of them were twenty seconds or less.

You gotta use a source making such claims. Options mean nothing. It's right out of the newspaper the next day. What's to dispute?? I can read the entire fight recap.

google search...



jake kilrain vs jem smith


All
Images
Videos
News
Forums
Shopping
Web
More
Tools
Jake Kilrain - Wikipedia
World Championship fight with Jem Smith
They fought 1-minute rounds with 30 seconds break between the rounds. At the outset the men fought evenly. After the 3rd round Kilrain scored several knockdowns, and wrestling formed the principal mode of operations for the rest of the fight.

I'd literally give you a newspaper scan but I dont know how to post image's. I clearly laid out my source for the information. There's no guess work involved here.

Bladder comments make no sense. 106 rounds a round ended when a man went down.
So there were 105 knockdown's according to what your saying... Even without research i'd assume that's ridiculous. The google search is exactly what the newspaper reports. Just type in Jake kilrain vs jem smith research it yourself, dont take my word.

I'd tried to say that's why so many rounds are involved because they are so short....
p4p1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5639
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 07:43

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by p4p1 »

Benny The Kid wrote: 28 Jan 2025, 22:41
Bladder wrote: 28 Jan 2025, 12:00
p4p1 wrote: 25 Jan 2025, 10:31
I’m still not convinced about these one minute rounds.
You're right, it's complete nonsense, a round ended when a man went down, which quite often was both of them while grappling.
A round could last ten seconds or ten minutes.
The 106-round fight between Kilrain and Smith that has been mentioned, only a handful of rounds lasted a minute or longer, most of them were twenty seconds or less.

You gotta use a source making such claims. Options mean nothing. It's right out of the newspaper the next day. What's to dispute?? I can read the entire fight recap.

google search...



jake kilrain vs jem smith


All
Images
Videos
News
Forums
Shopping
Web
More
Tools
Jake Kilrain - Wikipedia
World Championship fight with Jem Smith
They fought 1-minute rounds with 30 seconds break between the rounds. At the outset the men fought evenly. After the 3rd round Kilrain scored several knockdowns, and wrestling formed the principal mode of operations for the rest of the fight.

I'd literally give you a newspaper scan but I dont know how to post image's. I clearly laid out my source for the information. There's no guess work involved here.

Bladder comments make no sense. 106 rounds a round ended when a man went down.
So there were 105 knockdown's according to what your saying... Even without research i'd assume that's ridiculous. The google search is exactly what the newspaper reports. Just type in Jake kilrain vs jem smith research it yourself, dont take my word.

I'd tried to say that's why so many rounds are involved because they are so short....
No, under LPR, grappling someone to the ground, started a new round. As did IIRC cuts as well.
This boxrec article https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Jake_ ... ._Sullivan does state the length of a good amount of the rounds some much shorter and much longer than one minute.
p4p1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5639
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 07:43

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by p4p1 »

Wikipedia references this paper and article. Nowhere does it say in that article, the only one that wiki referenced for the fight that the round lasted a minute.

There isn't much info on the Kilrain vs Smith bout to be found, at least not about the timing of rounds.
But:
https://www.britannica.com/sports/Londo ... Ring-rules
A knockdown ended the round, followed by a 30-second rest and an additional 8 seconds to regain the centre of the ring.
The link I posted in an above comment talks about the length of rounds in Sullivan vs Kilrain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_Mace
This discusses some of the rounds and lengths of Jem Mace's fights under LPR. Some of them line up roughly with a 1 minute round and 30 second rests. Plenty of them do not though.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... ked%20down.
The greatest number of rounds was 276 in 4 hr 30 min when Jack Jones beat Patsy Tunney in Cheshire in 1825. Before the Queensbery Rules were introduced in 1867 each round of a fight would last until someone was knocked down. At that point the fighters would go back to their corners and then the fight would start again. There was no time limit nor was there any limit to the number of rounds. Because of this many fights at this time would end in draws.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... h-duration
The longest recorded fight with gloves was between Andy Bowen of New Orleans (1867-94) and Jack Burke (Texas, 1869-1913) at New Orleans, Louisiana, USA on 6 April 1893. It lasted 110 rounds, 7 hr 19 min (9:15 p.m.-4:34 a.m.), and was declared a no contest (later changed to a draw). Bowen won an 85-round bout on 31 May 1893.
The length of the bout with the number of rounds, definitely longer than 110 1 min rounds with 30 second rests. I have to imagine after about hour 3 or 4, it was painful to try and watch with both men being beyond exhausted. It is surprised a draw was not agreed on much earlier than the 7 hours.


I suspect that the reason why so many fights during this time period mention the amount of rounds as well as the time the two men fought is because round times were not a thing and rounds ended when someone was felled.

it also isn't clear when they say that that they say there was x minutes of fighting, whether that is the overall time including rests or only the period in which fighting actually took place. I can see logic behind both ways to be honest.
Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

p4p1 wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 03:53 Wikipedia references this paper and article. Nowhere does it say in that article, the only one that wiki referenced for the fight that the round lasted a minute.

There isn't much info on the Kilrain vs Smith bout to be found, at least not about the timing of rounds.
But:
https://www.britannica.com/sports/Londo ... Ring-rules
A knockdown ended the round, followed by a 30-second rest and an additional 8 seconds to regain the centre of the ring.
The link I posted in an above comment talks about the length of rounds in Sullivan vs Kilrain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_Mace
This discusses some of the rounds and lengths of Jem Mace's fights under LPR. Some of them line up roughly with a 1 minute round and 30 second rests. Plenty of them do not though.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... ked%20down.
The greatest number of rounds was 276 in 4 hr 30 min when Jack Jones beat Patsy Tunney in Cheshire in 1825. Before the Queensbery Rules were introduced in 1867 each round of a fight would last until someone was knocked down. At that point the fighters would go back to their corners and then the fight would start again. There was no time limit nor was there any limit to the number of rounds. Because of this many fights at this time would end in draws.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wo ... h-duration
The longest recorded fight with gloves was between Andy Bowen of New Orleans (1867-94) and Jack Burke (Texas, 1869-1913) at New Orleans, Louisiana, USA on 6 April 1893. It lasted 110 rounds, 7 hr 19 min (9:15 p.m.-4:34 a.m.), and was declared a no contest (later changed to a draw). Bowen won an 85-round bout on 31 May 1893.
The length of the bout with the number of rounds, definitely longer than 110 1 min rounds with 30 second rests. I have to imagine after about hour 3 or 4, it was painful to try and watch with both men being beyond exhausted. It is surprised a draw was not agreed on much earlier than the 7 hours.


I suspect that the reason why so many fights during this time period mention the amount of rounds as well as the time the two men fought is because round times were not a thing and rounds ended when someone was felled.

it also isn't clear when they say that that they say there was x minutes of fighting, whether that is the overall time including rests or only the period in which fighting actually took place. I can see logic behind both ways to be honest.
Thanks p4p1 this is exactly what I wanted a source. It could be rules were dependent upon each fight. IDK. They dont specifically break down what is ending a round...I will take a look again at some different sources of newspapers. Newspapers have plenty of mistake's so I'm not saying they are gospel. I really appreciate the fact that you supply a source. The one newspaper i read on kilrain & Jem smith said 1 minute rounds with 30 sec breaks and it was a rather extensive breakdown so I didn't dig further into it (which is the same as pops up in google search).

There could be a great chance it might change from fight to fight. I'll see what I can find. There has to be some kinda key sentence that is explaining why a round is ending. I always prefer to not look at researching in a backwards scope. Meaning i trust the info most the very next day in the newspaper rather than something wrote 10-30 years after the fact.

This is exactly how we disproved the long created myth that Jeffries said he could never beat jack Johnson, we pinpointed as a group where exactly it was first mentioned & it sure in the hell wasn't the next day in the newspaper. There is a thread on it in here found with a search. I'm the thread starter. Looking at facts in a backwards lens is often detrimental I've found as a researcher.

I appreciate how you presented your argument. I'll see what I can find.

Just as a side note. I researched the fight between Denver Ed smith & Choynski. Ton's of misinformation in the newspaper. Which is why i'm saying they aren't gospel. Very conflicting info. Just reading things the very next day you'd be okay that's what happened. But even the next day info can actually be wrong as it was in this case. I am going to do a video on the rather conflicting info. Because this is the very first time I've read that misinformation was presented on purpose. I have not come across that before.
Bladder
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1387
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 20:00

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Bladder »

You want a source?

The Sporting Life gave a great amount of coverage to the Kilrain-Smith fight. The edition dated 21 December 1887, if you want to research it yourself, gives a round-by-round description, including duration of rounds.
Here is a snapshot of that coverage:

Benny The Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Benny The Kid »

Bladder wrote: 29 Jan 2025, 06:21 You want a source?

The Sporting Life gave a great amount of coverage to the Kilrain-Smith fight. The edition dated 21 December 1887, if you want to research it yourself, gives a round-by-round description, including duration of rounds.
Here is a snapshot of that coverage:

I see that's a good breakdown what is ending a round any knee touching. So even on a 12 sec round they are getting a 30 sec break between rounds? It seems odd to keep a round ending when no official scoring is rendered at the end of the fight such as this...it was declared a draw. The newspaper i read definitely didn't have it ending in round 95 but the ending has the same wording. I can see how it has to be difficult to actually tell how many rounds are being fought with such a wonky system.

This certainly explains why Kilrain was going down repeatedly in the sullivan fight.

So as far as you can tell Bladder there was 30 sec's between these? I appreciate your help. The article i read was nothing like that. Which i said newspapers aren't gospel. Not no 23 sec round. Zero mention of that.

I'm not sure how exciting it would be watching a fight like this. 10 sec of action & 30 sec of rest.

I can totally see how the theory was devised though, as they folks in the old era completely wanted their money's worth in an event, there is no dispute of that. It appears the way that's set up is too get the very longest fight possible.

It appears Kilrain really lost his youth in the 18 month range from the Jem Smith to sullivan fight. I really think he was not at all in his prime for the sullivan fight as he seemed to do next to nothing between the fights. There was a qoute by Charlie Mitchell who was training Kilrain that he did everything possible just to get in the shape he was at & it wasn't very good.

Most of Sullivan's reputation was built on the kilrain fight & Kilrain just wasn't the same guy. Even in his next bout with Corbett the headlines read about how poor of shape he was in. It really makes me question the greatness of Sullivan beating a guy who wasn't in that great of shape. But that's me. The 18 month layoff was a complete dagger to Kilrain.
Bladder
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1387
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 20:00

Re: Ranking John L sullivan Realistically

Post by Bladder »

It didn't end in round 95, that is just a random screenshot of a section of the Sporting Life report, it ended after the 106th round because of poor light.

Yes, a 30-second break with an additional 8-seconds to come to scratch after every knock-down, whether thrown, falling together or from a punch and a touching knee and hand on the ground is considered to be down. So the break could be longer than the preceding round, as happened many times in this fight. Those were the LPR rules.

Mitchell was also with Kilrain in the Smith fight.
Post Reply