BoxRec

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31
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.

It seems odd to us now that a round could be so short but at the time this would have been normal. It was literally a fight to the finish or in this case, a fight until it is too dark to fight anymore.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31 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.

It is also not just a 30 second rest, it is 30 second rest and then 8 seconds to get 'up to scratch.'
It's a great article posted though, I have never seen a breakdown like that with the time of each round. It isn't suprising though that the longer the fight goes, the shorter some of the rounds are with the exhaustion that both fighters must have been feeling.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31
I'm not sure how exciting it would be watching a fight like this. 10 sec of action & 30 sec of rest.

This is part of what makes John L so important for modern boxing. Although the shorter fights and times rounds by all reports suited his style as he liked to come out fast and hard, he was also smart enough to realise:
1. Gloved fights with times rounds looked less brutal and would be more likely to become legalised.
2. Gloved boxing, especially shorter fights (Sullivan preferred 4 round fights) in which both fighters come out and go hell for leather for a set amount of time were more entertaining.
3. Gloved boxing if legalised, and it sort of was legal even when it wasn't, could be fought in arena's rather than in secret, allowing for more paying spectators would mean more money for everyone.
4. Shorter gloved fights meant fighters could fight more often, with less risk for injury, such as cuts facial bones. Not to mention hand wraps and gloves that go a long way to stop consistent broken hands.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31 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's not just that folks wanted their moneys worth, its that they wanted to see who the best fighter was and the best way to determine that, even now, is for fighters in any combat sport to fight until someone is knocked out, submitted or can no longer go on.
It wasn't a sport like we look at it today, they used exhibitions to make money from crowds and paying customers or to get a sponsor, but in a proper fight it was for bragging rights, and for the ability to go on said exhibition tours as the champion of England/America/The World, start your own gym catering for the elite and the riches that it bought with it.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31 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.

It is possible that Kilrain was no longer in his prime when the two met but it is worth mentioning that Sullivan was also very very good. Well better than very good, he was great, head and shoulders above those of his era. Sullivan himself was disliked by a good amount of people, Mitchell IIRC was among those that didn't like him.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 13:31 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.

Sullivan had the same or similar layoff to Kilrain, though probably lived a 'harder' life when not in training for a big fight. Both fought only exhibitions for at least a year to 18 months, which seems to have been the norm in those days because recovery from big fights took a long time.

if I could recommend a book, Strong Boy: The Life and Times of John L. Sullivan, America's First Sports Hero, was a great read and really informative about the era and the change that Sullivan was arguably the most important part of. I read the book, knowing who John L was but not actually knowing anything about him other than being the last bareknuckle world heavyweight champion. Some of the stories are pretty incredible.

Any theory's why Sullivan didn't face Jem Smith in bareknuckle?

Jem smith was considerably younger than Kilrain when they fought. He seems a logical choice to combat sullivan since he wasn't old.

Also is just the patsy Cardiff & Corbett the only two fights Sullivan did with gloves? I assumed there were no other's but I didn't read the book. I'll purchase it. I been flying through books lately.

Benny The Kid wrote: ↑30 Jan 2025, 15:04 Any theory's why Sullivan didn't face Jem Smith in bareknuckle?

Jem smith was considerably younger than Kilrain when they fought. He seems a logical choice to combat sullivan since he wasn't old.

Also is just the patsy Cardiff & Corbett the only two fights Sullivan did with gloves? I assumed there were no other's but I didn't read the book. I'll purchase it. I been flying through books lately.

Sullivan only had three bareknuckle fights - Ryan, Mitchell and Kilrain. All the rest were with gloves.

I think he had more bareknuckles fights than that. He had a fight with Tug Wilson that was bareknuckles. There are other fights that may have been, possibly his 2nd fight with Paddy Ryan (3rd fight was with gloves) The fight with Herbert Slade as well.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 11:15 I think he had more bareknuckles fights than that. He had a fight with Tug Wilson that was bareknuckles. There are other fights that may have been, possibly his 2nd fight with Paddy Ryan (3rd fight was with gloves) The fight with Herbert Slade as well.

Really?

I was going by a book I have called "The Legendary Champions" by Rex Lardner. On p. 49 it specifically says that Wilson demanded that the fight be fought bareknuckles.
I'm wondering if they fought more than once. The date was July 17, 1882. Is that the date that you have from the article?
It was also described as a crowd over 10,000, a record at the time.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 14:59 I was going by a book I have called "The Legendary Champions" by Rex Lardner. On p. 49 it specifically says that Wilson demanded that the fight be fought bareknuckles.
I'm wondering if they fought more than once. The date was July 17, 1882. Is that the date that you have from the article?
It was also described as a crowd over 10,000, a record at the time.

Yes, that is the date. They fought only once, Wilson stunk the joint out, falling to the canvas repeatedly to use up time so he could last the four-round distance and claim the prize-money.

In case you still think the Sullivan-Slade fight was bareknuckle:

That is interesting. I re-read the book I have. Technically, it did not say that it bare knuckles. However, the author of the book went out his way to say that was under the London Prize Rules, which from the newspaper article that you cited does not seem right.
Maybe the book simply got it all wrong. Then I started thinking about the London Prize Rules. Technically speaking, does a fight under those rules have to be bare knuckles? I read through the rules, and did not actually see anything about it being bare knuckles or not using gloves. (Maybe I missed it, a lot to go through)
Were there London Prize Rules fights with gloves (at least of some kind) and conceivably could this fight been under those conditions?

Lastly, I noticed that Boxrec does not count the Tug Wilson fight in Sullivan's record. I believe they count Marquis of Queens Bury fights but not London Prise Rules fights. Should they include it?

Copied and Pasted from the Wikipedia page on The London Prize Ring Rules because it's relevant to this conversation.


Famous fighters of prize ring include William "Bendigo" Thompson, Tom Cribb, Jack Broughton, James "Deaf" Burke, "Professor" Mike Donovan, Tom Allen, Samuel "Dutch Sam" Elias, John "Gentleman" Jackson, the "Benicia Boy" John Camel Heenan, Daniel Mendoza, Tom Molineaux, John "Old Smoke" Morrisey, Tom Sayers, Owen Swift, the "Trojan Giant" Paddy Ryan, Joe Goss, and James "Yankee Sullivan" Ambrose. England's last prize ring great was "gypsy" Jem Mace, and America's was John L. Sullivan—both men fought under both sets of rules, with and without gloves and are considered bridges to the modern era of boxing.[citation needed]

John L. Sullivan is the last fighter to have won a "world" championship under the London Prize Ring Rules in 1882 against Paddy Ryan and was the last champion to defend a title under the rules in 1889 against Jake Kilrain.

He really was not considered the 'World Champion' after beating Ryan. A lot of Sullivan's career is hard to make sense of. How to say how big were some of the wins over guys like Flood and Donaldson early in his career, and McCaffery and Slade later on.
Probably the best that we can do is rate him close to where we rate Corbett.

Sullivan is a bit difficult to rate, mainly because he was so dominant in his early career and because he was effectively finished after breaking an arm in an 1887 draw versus Cardiff, his last meaningful glove fight until Corbett beat him in 1892. The records of his earlier opponents like Rooke, Donaldson, Dalton, Greenfield, Burke, Ryan, McCaffrey, Mitchell, Herald, Elliott. Goss are available and with diligent research can give a decent picture of Sullivan's worth. Ringside reports and opinion suggest he was very fast, aggressive, strong with a big right hand. The ease that he defeated Burke would suggest that he would be up there with the best gloved fighters of the 1880 to 1900 era. he wasn't really a bare knuckle performer, having only three such fights. BTW London Rules never had one minute duration rounds, don't know where that idea came from.

I knew he broke his arm, but I had not heard that he was effectively finished after that fight. Have also read that he was fast, aggressive. and had a big right hand.
Guess it would take some diligent research on his opponents. I just can't get a handle on how good some of them were in regard to their era. Mitchell, Kilrain were certainly top contenders and later on Salvin, Jackson, Godfrey. Other guys I don't know about.
For example, was Flood a real contender?
What would be your Top 10, in say 1885?

1885

1-Sullivan
2-McCaffrey
3-Burke
4-Mitchell
5-Kilrain
6-Cleary
7-Cardiff
8-Killen
9-Godfrey
10-Lees

Flood was just a decent local level fighter, Slade was an over hyped nothing, Wilson wasn't much either. Burke, Mitchell, Kilrain, McCaffrey, Cardiff were top level, Greenfield too and Ryan, more a bare knuckle guy was also decent.

Sullivan was just a tavern brawler who dominated the fight game before the Marquis of Queensberry rules were firmly adopted. He fought a bunch of rubes in small towns and villages, blacksmiths and dock workers and the like. Very few what could be regarded as professional fighters. Some of them were giving away thirty pounds to Sullivan. He quit against Canada's Patsy Cardiff, claiming he broke his arm. He ducked old George Godfrey, even though he outweighed George by at least twenty pounds. He used the same excuse to avoid Peter Jackson, the Dark Prince. The good old colour line. He should have been forced to fight Frank Slavin at least. In no way shape or form was Sullivan heavyweight champion of the world. At best he was champion of part of the USA.

Sullivan did indeed invoke the colour line as did all the champions up to Burns, when they won the title, The top fighters of the time were indeed full time professionals, fighting and touring regularly but one of the hits against John L is the fact that his best opponents were smaller boxers who had come to prominence from a bare knuckle background. The broken arm against Cardiff was verified by a doctor IIRC.

Thanks for posting your rankings. As for Flood, I just wish there more info as to any fights that he had with anyone notable.
One thing that I just noticed about the Flood-Sullivan fight on the BoxRec Data bases was this: The fight was London Prize Rules but with gloves. So apparently some of the LPR fights were fought with gloves. I am wondering if the Tug Wilson-Sullivan fight was under those rules as well.

I do count Sullivan as the World Champion. He did a lot to help the sport by turning the United States and fighting countless fights. Yes most were against inexperienced stiff, but it helped the sport.
He obviously fought some experienced pros as well.
He did beat Mitchell and Jem Smith would not fight him.
If we don't count Sullivan as the champion, then should we count Corbett and everyone after him? I think we have to.