Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 00:11
At 34 in the 1800s plus his lifestyle, it is hard to argue that he was anywhere near his prime.
BoxRec
Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Page 2 of 2
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 14:34
Louis and Schmeling each to one another.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 15:47
I thought of that one. I'll add Marlon Starling doing a number on Lloyd.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 21:46
I can see where the guy is coming from in mentioning it because Sullivan for all intents and purposes was the world's champion for 12 years under two different sets of rules and nobody honestly thought that he could lose.
Him losing to Corbett was actually referred to as a national calamity by the media of the time. There was nobody bigger in the United States than John L Sullivan other than the president of the United States. No he was not in his prime and he let himself go and quite frankly he hadn't cared about fighting for years, but him losing to Corbett is something that shocked a lot of people.
The notion or idea that Corbett was a beloved champion and a popular figure is more a creation of the early talking motion picture era when they made the film Gentleman Jim, etc because Corbett said it many times over the course of his life after beating Sullivan that the public never quite forgave him for having the audacity to fight their hero let alone having defeated Sullivan.
All the accolades and praise on Corbett being the father of modern boxing is something that came along with Ring magazine became an institution, with writers like Nat Fleischer elevating Corbett in status while down playing Sullivan. Everybody is under the false belief that Corbett was the one who was the first champion with gloves on and that it was Corbett that popularized the Marquess of Queensbury rules when the truth is it was John L Sullivan and Jem Mace who took boxing off the barges and the barns and the backwoods and the taverns and into arenas.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 22:36
Couldn't have said it any better.Took the words right out of my mouth.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 21:46I can see where the guy is coming from in mentioning it because Sullivan for all intents and purposes was the world's champion for 12 years under two different sets of rules and nobody honestly thought that he could lose.
Him losing to Corbett was actually referred to as a national calamity by the media of the time. There was nobody bigger in the United States than John L Sullivan other than the president of the United States. No he was not in his prime and he let himself go and quite frankly he hadn't cared about fighting for years, but him losing to Corbett is something that shocked a lot of people.
The notion or idea that Corbett was a beloved champion and a popular figure is more a creation of the early talking motion picture era when they made the film Gentleman Jim, etc because Corbett said it many times over the course of his life after beating Sullivan that the public never quite forgave him for having the audacity to fight their hero let alone having defeated Sullivan.
All the accolades and praise on Corbett being the father of modern boxing is something that came along with Ring magazine became an institution, with writers like Nat Fleischer elevating Corbett in status while down playing Sullivan. Everybody is under the false belief that Corbett was the one who was the first champion with gloves on and that it was Corbett that popularized the Marquess of Queensbury rules when the truth is it was John L Sullivan and Jem Mace who took boxing off the barges and the barns and the backwoods and the taverns and into arenas.
BTW:the famous reporter for the New York World,Nellie Bly,dropped in one day to interview John L. in his training camp in Belfast ,New York.After spending a week talking to him and watching him train she concluded,I have her article in a collection of boxing stories edited by Jeff Silverman.Sullivan comes across as all business.
"If John L. Sullivan isn't abler to lick any pugilist in the world I would like to meet him."
John L. in prepping for a fight put aside his vices.Granted he was a boozer in between fights. However,I don't think he could have ever licked Corbett.John L. Was America's first great sports icon.When he lost that fight it knocked the world off its orbit.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 03 Feb 2023, 22:49
It's difficult to say how a man in his prime would have done against the man who defeated him. Charlie Mitchell was quite a quick man on his feet and much lighter than John L Sullivan yet Sullivan never seemed to have any real issues with Mitchell.dagosd2000 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 22:36Couldn't have said it any better.Took the words right out of my mouth.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 21:46I can see where the guy is coming from in mentioning it because Sullivan for all intents and purposes was the world's champion for 12 years under two different sets of rules and nobody honestly thought that he could lose.
Him losing to Corbett was actually referred to as a national calamity by the media of the time. There was nobody bigger in the United States than John L Sullivan other than the president of the United States. No he was not in his prime and he let himself go and quite frankly he hadn't cared about fighting for years, but him losing to Corbett is something that shocked a lot of people.
The notion or idea that Corbett was a beloved champion and a popular figure is more a creation of the early talking motion picture era when they made the film Gentleman Jim, etc because Corbett said it many times over the course of his life after beating Sullivan that the public never quite forgave him for having the audacity to fight their hero let alone having defeated Sullivan.
All the accolades and praise on Corbett being the father of modern boxing is something that came along with Ring magazine became an institution, with writers like Nat Fleischer elevating Corbett in status while down playing Sullivan. Everybody is under the false belief that Corbett was the one who was the first champion with gloves on and that it was Corbett that popularized the Marquess of Queensbury rules when the truth is it was John L Sullivan and Jem Mace who took boxing off the barges and the barns and the backwoods and the taverns and into arenas.
I have her article in a collection of boxing stories edited by Jeff Silverman.Sullivan comes across as all business.
"If John L. Sullivan isn't abler to lick any pugilist in the world I would like to meet him."
John L. in prepping for a fight put aside his vices.Granted he was a boozer in between fights. However,I don't think he could have ever licked Corbett.John L. Was America's first great sports icon.When he lost that fight it knocked the world off its orbit.
So I think that gives every indication he would have been at the very least competitive with Corbett, even if you gave Corbett an edge in speed or overall skills over Mitchell.
I tend to think that if Bob Fitzsimmons could put Corbett down for the count with a body blow I tend to think that Sullivan could have done the same though it might have taken him longer to do it. Sullivan was more explosive than Fitzsimmons, and more aggressive.
And really Sullivan preferred fighting under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, because it forced the combatants to fight rather than wrestle like the bare knuckle rules, and he had hundreds of exhibitions under these rules along with nearly 30 actual contests under those rules so it's not like Corbett had some sort of advantage when it came to those rules necessarily.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 04 Feb 2023, 02:57
In some cases it's hard to imagine how a guy might do in his prime, in some cases it's not. If the older, faded version of the well respected fighter is able to hold his own even when past it, it's not difficult to believe that a prime version of him would win.
Roy Jones vs Antonio Tarver is an interesting rivalry to consider if it had taken place even as little as 3 years earlier.
Holmes and Ali is another one that would always be interesting I think. Ali I think always would have hell with Holmes, but obviously he wouldn't get dominated as he did if he were anywhere near his best.
Roy Jones vs Antonio Tarver is an interesting rivalry to consider if it had taken place even as little as 3 years earlier.
Holmes and Ali is another one that would always be interesting I think. Ali I think always would have hell with Holmes, but obviously he wouldn't get dominated as he did if he were anywhere near his best.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 04 Feb 2023, 15:08
Junior Jones beat twice a prime great Marco Antonio Barrera
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 04 Feb 2023, 18:57
Young Corbett III getting iced in the 1st rd by Jimmy McLarnin in 1933.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 04 Feb 2023, 19:31
I don't know if Mosley is considered an ATG, but he got his ass thoroughly handed to him in the 1st Vernon Forrest fight.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 04 Feb 2023, 21:14
and then forrest shortly after got his arse kicked by ricky mayorga
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 00:10
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 01:24
Mosley gotta be an ATG, since he won the ATG De La Hoya and has been in the mix of the top notch fighters for years.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 09:03
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 09:37
Cumulatively. His biggest wins were at welter despite the lesser consistency there, since his welterweight opposition was much tougher.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 19:40
I recently read a book about John L and it was a great read. It went in to how important John L was in making gloved fights, 3 minute rounds and a limited number of rounds. IIRC it was John L who was a huge driving force in building the first Madison Sq Garden as well. He saw the potential of gloved fights to be more of a spectator sport (meaning more $$$) without the risk of jail time etc.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 21:46I can see where the guy is coming from in mentioning it because Sullivan for all intents and purposes was the world's champion for 12 years under two different sets of rules and nobody honestly thought that he could lose.
Him losing to Corbett was actually referred to as a national calamity by the media of the time. There was nobody bigger in the United States than John L Sullivan other than the president of the United States. No he was not in his prime and he let himself go and quite frankly he hadn't cared about fighting for years, but him losing to Corbett is something that shocked a lot of people.
The notion or idea that Corbett was a beloved champion and a popular figure is more a creation of the early talking motion picture era when they made the film Gentleman Jim, etc because Corbett said it many times over the course of his life after beating Sullivan that the public never quite forgave him for having the audacity to fight their hero let alone having defeated Sullivan.
All the accolades and praise on Corbett being the father of modern boxing is something that came along with Ring magazine became an institution, with writers like Nat Fleischer elevating Corbett in status while down playing Sullivan. Everybody is under the false belief that Corbett was the one who was the first champion with gloves on and that it was Corbett that popularized the Marquess of Queensbury rules when the truth is it was John L Sullivan and Jem Mace who took boxing off the barges and the barns and the backwoods and the taverns and into arenas.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 05 Feb 2023, 21:49
Ruben Carter over Emile Griffith, not long after Griffith was named fighter of the year if I'm not mistaken.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 06 Feb 2023, 14:15
Certainly your first account on here?Ill Douche wrote: ↑04 Feb 2023, 17:00 Durans KO at the hands of Tommy Hearns was as decisive a loss as it gets.
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 07 Feb 2023, 11:17
Hearns destruction of Pipino Cuevas
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 07 Feb 2023, 16:02
Duran KO Moore
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 08 Feb 2023, 10:40
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 08 Feb 2023, 13:00
True. I just remember at the time him being touted as a future ATG.tiny_acres wrote: ↑08 Feb 2023, 10:40It was a devastating loss but Moore was not even close to being an atg
Re: Most Emphatic/Dominating Loss For A Prime ATG
Posted: 08 Feb 2023, 13:56
I'd say the way James Toney lost to Roy Jones is a big part of the reason why he had drifted into near irrelevancy until he came back into prominence in 2003.