>>>Those fighters were not conditioned like the fighters of today. Corbett for example got knockout out by one punch to the midsection!<<<
Damn...if I'm not mistaken De La Hoya was knocked out by one punch to the mid-section...it's what we in the boxing world call a good body shot and Bob Fitzsimmons was famous for it. Too bad the fighters of yesteryear don't look like the Kirk Johnson's, or the Quiitschko's, or any of the other heavyweights of today that are almost completely spent after the sixth, or seventh round of the barn-burner, 30 punch a round blazing pace that they have set today...yeah there is a lot of truth in that statement!
John L. Sullivan against today's boxers
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: re
I seem to remember Vigil Hill suffering the same fate against RJJ.barry wrote:>>>Those fighters were not conditioned like the fighters of today. Corbett for example got knockout out by one punch to the midsection!<<<
Damn...if I'm not mistaken De La Hoya was knocked out by one punch to the mid-section...it's what we in the boxing world call a good body shot and Bob Fitzsimmons was famous for it. Too bad the fighters of yesteryear don't look like the Kirk Johnson's, or the Quiitschko's, or any of the other heavyweights of today that are almost completely spent after the sixth, or seventh round of the barn-burner, 30 punch a round blazing pace that they have set today...yeah there is a lot of truth in that statement!
Oh yes, and Lewis and V. Quiitschko (I like that) were spent after about 3 rounds of 30 punches a round action.
Took to fighting more frequently? What do you base this comment on?
in his career, Sullivan only fought 36 times in 13 years. only 4 of his opponents won more than 10 fights, and 24 of them had never fought proffesionally.
Corbett himself only fought 24 times in 17 years. fighters after them began to take the sport more seriously, developing better skills and training techiques.
De La Hoya was knocked out by one punch to the mid-section...
Dela hoya was knocked down with a liver punch. Corbett was his at the center of his stomach. A thrown medicine ball would have probably dropped him.
those old-timers fought at a slow plodding pace and its absurd to think they were in better condition than todays fighters.
Kirk Johnson in sullivans times would have been unstoppable.
in his career, Sullivan only fought 36 times in 13 years. only 4 of his opponents won more than 10 fights, and 24 of them had never fought proffesionally.
Corbett himself only fought 24 times in 17 years. fighters after them began to take the sport more seriously, developing better skills and training techiques.
De La Hoya was knocked out by one punch to the mid-section...
Dela hoya was knocked down with a liver punch. Corbett was his at the center of his stomach. A thrown medicine ball would have probably dropped him.
those old-timers fought at a slow plodding pace and its absurd to think they were in better condition than todays fighters.
Kirk Johnson in sullivans times would have been unstoppable.
There are those of us here who beleive that the sport is slowly evolving.
I always like to hear from a kindred spirit on that point. But I think it is a slow and subtle trend, the current group being a negative anomalie to my thesis. And the best of the best are not included in my "trend" discusssion. I think the evolution is subtle.
But Kirk Johnson ruling the old HW divison? Do you see Kirk dominating the whole early run up to and including Jack Johnson?
I always like to hear from a kindred spirit on that point. But I think it is a slow and subtle trend, the current group being a negative anomalie to my thesis. And the best of the best are not included in my "trend" discusssion. I think the evolution is subtle.
But Kirk Johnson ruling the old HW divison? Do you see Kirk dominating the whole early run up to and including Jack Johnson?
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
OK, this explains a lot. Your entire knowledge of the early gloved era comes from the incomplete BoxRec entries, mid 20th century kids books and Hollywood movies. Do you really believe that Sullivan only fought 36 times in 13 years and only 4 of his opponents had 10 or more fights? Is it just POSSIBLE that MAYBE there are a few fights missing from these records? Or maybe you never thought of that.theone wrote:Took to fighting more frequently? What do you base this comment on?
in his career, Sullivan only fought 36 times in 13 years. only 4 of his opponents won more than 10 fights, and 24 of them had never fought proffesionally.
Corbett himself only fought 24 times in 17 years. fighters after them began to take the sport more seriously, developing better skills and training techiques.
De La Hoya was knocked out by one punch to the mid-section...
Dela hoya was knocked down with a liver punch. Corbett was his at the center of his stomach. A thrown medicine ball would have probably dropped him.
those old-timers fought at a slow plodding pace and its absurd to think they were in better condition than todays fighters.
Kirk Johnson in sullivans times would have been unstoppable.
I strongly suggest that if you aren't familiar with a topic, you should refrain from commenting, lest you show your ignorance.
Oh and BTW, I have never stated that John L, or Corbett could have bested the contemporary HWs. Perhaps when you read a bit more your comprehension will improve.
Do you see Kirk dominating the whole early run up to and including Jack Johnson?
the heavyweight diivision of Sullivan yes, of Johnson no. Johnson and his comptemporaries were much better fighters than the generation before them, although Kirk had the size, power and movement to beat most of them.
Jack Johnson was a sign of things to come, but even he looks kind of primative when you watch dempsey and Louis at their best.
I believe that the heavyweights reached their greatest level in the late late 60's early 70's. Heavyweights immedialty before them like Tunney Louis,Charles and walcott had raised their game to an art form. But were physically not the match of the monsters we have today, like it or not. todays fighters although physically imposing, have seemed to go through a de-evolutionary stage when it comes to technique. Feints, bodyshots, double jabs and head movement doesnt seem to be taught in gyms anymore.
fighters of the late 60's early 70's were the perfect combination of the two, size and skill. George foreman was not only an imposing physical speciman but he had underrated technique that were not appreciated back then. Watch a fight of foreman in his prime and watch a modern heavyweight fight and you'll see what i'm talking about.
the heavyweight diivision of Sullivan yes, of Johnson no. Johnson and his comptemporaries were much better fighters than the generation before them, although Kirk had the size, power and movement to beat most of them.
Jack Johnson was a sign of things to come, but even he looks kind of primative when you watch dempsey and Louis at their best.
I believe that the heavyweights reached their greatest level in the late late 60's early 70's. Heavyweights immedialty before them like Tunney Louis,Charles and walcott had raised their game to an art form. But were physically not the match of the monsters we have today, like it or not. todays fighters although physically imposing, have seemed to go through a de-evolutionary stage when it comes to technique. Feints, bodyshots, double jabs and head movement doesnt seem to be taught in gyms anymore.
fighters of the late 60's early 70's were the perfect combination of the two, size and skill. George foreman was not only an imposing physical speciman but he had underrated technique that were not appreciated back then. Watch a fight of foreman in his prime and watch a modern heavyweight fight and you'll see what i'm talking about.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
OK now were getting somewhere. Evolved to the point of George Foreman, and then down hill from there. So George was the peak of the HW evolution? Were there any missing links along the way?theone wrote:Do you see Kirk dominating the whole early run up to and including Jack Johnson?
the heavyweight diivision of Sullivan yes, of Johnson no. Johnson and his comptemporaries were much better fighters than the generation before them, although Kirk had the size, power and movement to beat most of them.
Jack Johnson was a sign of things to come, but even he looks kind of primative when you watch dempsey and Louis at their best.
I believe that the heavyweights reached their greatest level in the late late 60's early 70's. Heavyweights immedialty before them like Tunney Louis,Charles and walcott had raised their game to an art form. But were physically not the match of the monsters we have today, like it or not. todays fighters although physically imposing, have seemed to go through a de-evolutionary stage when it comes to technique. Feints, bodyshots, double jabs and head movement doesnt seem to be taught in gyms anymore.
fighters of the late 60's early 70's were the perfect combination of the two, size and skill. George foreman was not only an imposing physical speciman but he had underrated technique that were not appreciated back then. Watch a fight of foreman in his prime and watch a modern heavyweight fight and you'll see what i'm talking about.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Oh and BTW, I have never stated that John L, or Corbett could have bested the contemporary HWs. Perhaps when you read a bit more your comprehension will improve.
By your snide statements, this is exactly what your implying:
BTW -- who was the first HW champion that had magically evolved into a real fighter? I guess this evolution has led us to the Klitschkos?
However, since no HW's from long ago could actually fight, it would be interesting to hear from theone exactly when the HW's learned how to fight.
you cbviously believe that the sport has not evolved since john L. stand-up, "put up your dukes" style of fighting, which shows how ignorant you are about the sport.
By your snide statements, this is exactly what your implying:
BTW -- who was the first HW champion that had magically evolved into a real fighter? I guess this evolution has led us to the Klitschkos?
However, since no HW's from long ago could actually fight, it would be interesting to hear from theone exactly when the HW's learned how to fight.
you cbviously believe that the sport has not evolved since john L. stand-up, "put up your dukes" style of fighting, which shows how ignorant you are about the sport.
-
ringsider
- Heavyweight
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
No, you again are having problems with comprehension. Maybe if you shared your copy of the film showing John L fightng in the stand-up, "put up your dukes" style of fighting then I could appreciate your vast knowledge of boxing and science better.theone wrote:...you cbviously believe that the sport has not evolved since john L. stand-up, "put up your dukes" style of fighting, which shows how ignorant you are about the sport.
Or better yet, just remind me of the name of that kids book you read so we could all learn how John L had never actually seen a left jab prior to Corbett...
Always on the level. John L. Sullivan
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
theone wrote
heres proof:
Did past greats fight slower than moderns? Consider the following: One of the most action-packed battles of recent memory was the 2003 Fight-of-the-Year candidate, Vassily Jirov versus -James Toney. Jirov lost a hotly contested nod, but was the busier man, averaging 86 punches for all 12 rounds.
There have been fights in the past just as heated over greater distances.
The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen” wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.
Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.
They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!
Here’s another myth buster. The Willie Ritchie-Joe Rivers July 4, 1913 lightweight championship match, featured a whopping 95 punches-a-round from Ritchie -- 3-5 punch combinations – before stopping Rivers in the 11th – clear evidence, he could match the intensity of anybody currently.
and if u think guys back then couldnt hit???
-Terry McGovern knocked out 10 men in a total of 17 rounds, the victims included top ranked contenders like Pat Haley, Harry Forbes and bantamweight champion Pedlar Palmer, who was undefeated.
-Joe Gans was one of the greatest fighters of any time. The San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 28, 1904 wrote of his marvelous speed and skills, “Those who have watched Gans go through his work every day are amazed at his wonderful agility, his speed and his clean hitting ability.”
In his career, Gans scored 70 knockouts that were 10 rounds or less, and 27 knockouts that were three rounds or less, and the victims included hard hitting left-hook artist Dal Hawkins, lightweight champion Frank Erne, and the usually durable Elbows McFadden.
-Bob Fitzsimmons had 47 knockouts in his 54 wins, and although not much more than a middleweight, he knocked out heavyweight contenders Gus Ruhlin in six, Peter Maher in one, and Tom Sharkey, whom some old-timers compared favorably to Rocky Marciano, in two rounds.
-Stanley Ketchel was a murderous puncher, who scored 50 knockouts in his 54 wins, 19 were three rounds or less, and the victims included top men, like Mike “Twin” Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien.
- Sam Langford had more knockouts than Mike Tyson and George Foreman combined. His 138 career knockouts (research by historian Tim Leone) are second only to Archie Moore on the all-time list.
heres more proof that the fights that went past 15 rounds were fought at just as hard pace.
The recent May 2005 Diego Corrales –Jose Luis Castillo slugfest has been heralded as one of the greatest fights of all time. For 10 rounds they went at it from the opening bell, at any time it appeared that either man could fold from the blitz of vicious punching. The bout ended with seesaw fireworks that had the fans both stunned and screaming in excitement. Old time fight promoter Jim Coffroth described the Stanley Ketchel- Joe Thomas fight with the same kind of intensity, but for 32 rounds! Coffroth, an eyewitness, said, “They came racing out of their corners like madmen and never until the last blow was struck did either quit in the savage onslaught. I never took my eyes off that ring. I couldn’t! The sight of those men raining sledgehammer blows on each other and of both standing up when it seemed that one or both must collapse, fascinated me. For every second of every minute of the first 31 rounds I felt that the end must come. But it didn’t until after an hour and a half of the wildest fighting I had ever seen! I stood there petrified, but the crowd around me had gone crazy. The crowd was on its feet yelling and shrieking in wild delirium as the tide of the battle swept toward Ketchel, and then toward Thomas, and then back and forth again. It was a sight I couldn’t forget.” Ketchel finally knocked out Thomas in the 32nd round demonstrating the qualities of a real man of iron.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html
ahhhh u are very wrong my friendthose old time heavyweights fought at an extremely slow pace
heres proof:
Did past greats fight slower than moderns? Consider the following: One of the most action-packed battles of recent memory was the 2003 Fight-of-the-Year candidate, Vassily Jirov versus -James Toney. Jirov lost a hotly contested nod, but was the busier man, averaging 86 punches for all 12 rounds.
There have been fights in the past just as heated over greater distances.
The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen” wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.
Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.
They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!
Here’s another myth buster. The Willie Ritchie-Joe Rivers July 4, 1913 lightweight championship match, featured a whopping 95 punches-a-round from Ritchie -- 3-5 punch combinations – before stopping Rivers in the 11th – clear evidence, he could match the intensity of anybody currently.
and if u think guys back then couldnt hit???
-Terry McGovern knocked out 10 men in a total of 17 rounds, the victims included top ranked contenders like Pat Haley, Harry Forbes and bantamweight champion Pedlar Palmer, who was undefeated.
-Joe Gans was one of the greatest fighters of any time. The San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 28, 1904 wrote of his marvelous speed and skills, “Those who have watched Gans go through his work every day are amazed at his wonderful agility, his speed and his clean hitting ability.”
In his career, Gans scored 70 knockouts that were 10 rounds or less, and 27 knockouts that were three rounds or less, and the victims included hard hitting left-hook artist Dal Hawkins, lightweight champion Frank Erne, and the usually durable Elbows McFadden.
-Bob Fitzsimmons had 47 knockouts in his 54 wins, and although not much more than a middleweight, he knocked out heavyweight contenders Gus Ruhlin in six, Peter Maher in one, and Tom Sharkey, whom some old-timers compared favorably to Rocky Marciano, in two rounds.
-Stanley Ketchel was a murderous puncher, who scored 50 knockouts in his 54 wins, 19 were three rounds or less, and the victims included top men, like Mike “Twin” Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien.
- Sam Langford had more knockouts than Mike Tyson and George Foreman combined. His 138 career knockouts (research by historian Tim Leone) are second only to Archie Moore on the all-time list.
heres more proof that the fights that went past 15 rounds were fought at just as hard pace.
The recent May 2005 Diego Corrales –Jose Luis Castillo slugfest has been heralded as one of the greatest fights of all time. For 10 rounds they went at it from the opening bell, at any time it appeared that either man could fold from the blitz of vicious punching. The bout ended with seesaw fireworks that had the fans both stunned and screaming in excitement. Old time fight promoter Jim Coffroth described the Stanley Ketchel- Joe Thomas fight with the same kind of intensity, but for 32 rounds! Coffroth, an eyewitness, said, “They came racing out of their corners like madmen and never until the last blow was struck did either quit in the savage onslaught. I never took my eyes off that ring. I couldn’t! The sight of those men raining sledgehammer blows on each other and of both standing up when it seemed that one or both must collapse, fascinated me. For every second of every minute of the first 31 rounds I felt that the end must come. But it didn’t until after an hour and a half of the wildest fighting I had ever seen! I stood there petrified, but the crowd around me had gone crazy. The crowd was on its feet yelling and shrieking in wild delirium as the tide of the battle swept toward Ketchel, and then toward Thomas, and then back and forth again. It was a sight I couldn’t forget.” Ketchel finally knocked out Thomas in the 32nd round demonstrating the qualities of a real man of iron.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html
I will have to say as a somewhat qualifying factor that defense has improved at a faster rate than offense over the years.
Unfortunately some of that defense is fewer rounds and fewer fights and ducking deserving opponents.
Just wanted to add a touch of Chaos to this.
Oh and to my surprise I find myself reading more and my comprehension improving. Just not sure that one is leading to the other.
Unfortunately some of that defense is fewer rounds and fewer fights and ducking deserving opponents.
Just wanted to add a touch of Chaos to this.
Oh and to my surprise I find myself reading more and my comprehension improving. Just not sure that one is leading to the other.
The Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast lightweight championship held on Feb 22, 1910 was called “for concentrated viciousness... the most savage bout I have ever seen” wrote W.O. McGeehan in the New York Herald Tribune.
Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.
They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!
Here’s another myth buster. The Willie Ritchie-Joe Rivers July 4, 1913 lightweight championship match, featured a whopping 95 punches-a-round from Ritchie -- 3-5 punch combinations – before stopping Rivers in the 11th – clear evidence, he could match the intensity of anybody currently.
and if u think guys back then couldnt hit???
-Terry McGovern knocked out 10 men in a total of 17 rounds, the victims included top ranked contenders like Pat Haley, Harry Forbes and bantamweight champion Pedlar Palmer, who was undefeated.
-Joe Gans was one of the greatest fighters of any time. The San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 28, 1904 wrote of his marvelous speed and skills, “Those who have watched Gans go through his work every day are amazed at his wonderful agility, his speed and his clean hitting ability.”
In his career, Gans scored 70 knockouts that were 10 rounds or less, and 27 knockouts that were three rounds or less, and the victims included hard hitting left-hook artist Dal Hawkins, lightweight champion Frank Erne, and the usually durable Elbows McFadden.
-Bob Fitzsimmons had 47 knockouts in his 54 wins, and although not much more than a middleweight, he knocked out heavyweight contenders Gus Ruhlin in six, Peter Maher in one, and Tom Sharkey, whom some old-timers compared favorably to Rocky Marciano, in two rounds.
-Stanley Ketchel was a murderous puncher, who scored 50 knockouts in his 54 wins, 19 were three rounds or less, and the victims included top men, like Mike “Twin” Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien.
- Sam Langford had more knockouts than Mike Tyson and George Foreman combined. His 138 career knockouts (research by historian Tim Leone) are second only to Archie Moore on the all-time list.
heres more proof that the fights that went past 15 rounds were fought at just as hard pace.
The recent May 2005 Diego Corrales –Jose Luis Castillo slugfest has been heralded as one of the greatest fights of all time. For 10 rounds they went at it from the opening bell, at any time it appeared that either man could fold from the blitz of vicious punching. The bout ended with seesaw fireworks that had the fans both stunned and screaming in excitement. Old time fight promoter Jim Coffroth described the Stanley Ketchel- Joe Thomas fight with the same kind of intensity, but for 32 rounds! Coffroth, an eyewitness, said, “They came racing out of their corners like madmen and never until the last blow was struck did either quit in the savage onslaught. I never took my eyes off that ring. I couldn’t! The sight of those men raining sledgehammer blows on each other and of both standing up when it seemed that one or both must collapse, fascinated me. For every second of every minute of the first 31 rounds I felt that the end must come. But it didn’t until after an hour and a half of the wildest fighting I had ever seen! I stood there petrified, but the crowd around me had gone crazy. The crowd was on its feet yelling and shrieking in wild delirium as the tide of the battle swept toward Ketchel, and then toward Thomas, and then back and forth again. It was a sight I couldn’t forget.” Ketchel finally knocked out Thomas in the 32nd round demonstrating the qualities of a real man of iron.
Brockton, I was talking about the heavyweights of the Sullivan era. Not the lighter wieghts of later years.
Michael Hunnicut agrees, saying it is “the best fight I have ever seen on film.” They fought to the 42nd round. Nelson, a swarmer, like Ricky Hatton, averaged 85 punches a round. He threw 90 in the 30th round.
They slowed in the 39th. Nelson, the loser, threw 70. These guys threw just as many punches-a-round as one sees in a 12-rounder today, but they did it for over 40!
Here’s another myth buster. The Willie Ritchie-Joe Rivers July 4, 1913 lightweight championship match, featured a whopping 95 punches-a-round from Ritchie -- 3-5 punch combinations – before stopping Rivers in the 11th – clear evidence, he could match the intensity of anybody currently.
and if u think guys back then couldnt hit???
-Terry McGovern knocked out 10 men in a total of 17 rounds, the victims included top ranked contenders like Pat Haley, Harry Forbes and bantamweight champion Pedlar Palmer, who was undefeated.
-Joe Gans was one of the greatest fighters of any time. The San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 28, 1904 wrote of his marvelous speed and skills, “Those who have watched Gans go through his work every day are amazed at his wonderful agility, his speed and his clean hitting ability.”
In his career, Gans scored 70 knockouts that were 10 rounds or less, and 27 knockouts that were three rounds or less, and the victims included hard hitting left-hook artist Dal Hawkins, lightweight champion Frank Erne, and the usually durable Elbows McFadden.
-Bob Fitzsimmons had 47 knockouts in his 54 wins, and although not much more than a middleweight, he knocked out heavyweight contenders Gus Ruhlin in six, Peter Maher in one, and Tom Sharkey, whom some old-timers compared favorably to Rocky Marciano, in two rounds.
-Stanley Ketchel was a murderous puncher, who scored 50 knockouts in his 54 wins, 19 were three rounds or less, and the victims included top men, like Mike “Twin” Sullivan and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien.
- Sam Langford had more knockouts than Mike Tyson and George Foreman combined. His 138 career knockouts (research by historian Tim Leone) are second only to Archie Moore on the all-time list.
heres more proof that the fights that went past 15 rounds were fought at just as hard pace.
The recent May 2005 Diego Corrales –Jose Luis Castillo slugfest has been heralded as one of the greatest fights of all time. For 10 rounds they went at it from the opening bell, at any time it appeared that either man could fold from the blitz of vicious punching. The bout ended with seesaw fireworks that had the fans both stunned and screaming in excitement. Old time fight promoter Jim Coffroth described the Stanley Ketchel- Joe Thomas fight with the same kind of intensity, but for 32 rounds! Coffroth, an eyewitness, said, “They came racing out of their corners like madmen and never until the last blow was struck did either quit in the savage onslaught. I never took my eyes off that ring. I couldn’t! The sight of those men raining sledgehammer blows on each other and of both standing up when it seemed that one or both must collapse, fascinated me. For every second of every minute of the first 31 rounds I felt that the end must come. But it didn’t until after an hour and a half of the wildest fighting I had ever seen! I stood there petrified, but the crowd around me had gone crazy. The crowd was on its feet yelling and shrieking in wild delirium as the tide of the battle swept toward Ketchel, and then toward Thomas, and then back and forth again. It was a sight I couldn’t forget.” Ketchel finally knocked out Thomas in the 32nd round demonstrating the qualities of a real man of iron.
Brockton, I was talking about the heavyweights of the Sullivan era. Not the lighter wieghts of later years.
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
The Great John L. did not have the style to compete with todays heavyweights.
The fact he preferred the gloved rules was simply because he did not like the prizefighting rules of going down and the round ending.
Charley Mitchel used these rules to great effect when he fought John L.
John L. Sullivan wanted you to stand in front of him, man`o`man, where your punches would bounce off his big shoulders and chest, and his clubbing right would severe your head off when he hit you with his pet punch to the side of the neck.
Corbett was all for fighting without the gloves, it was John L. who called for the gloves to be compulsory in their fight, maybe because he didn`t want trouble from the law but most probable he didn`t want another foot-race like he always had with Mitchell.
The fact he preferred the gloved rules was simply because he did not like the prizefighting rules of going down and the round ending.
Charley Mitchel used these rules to great effect when he fought John L.
John L. Sullivan wanted you to stand in front of him, man`o`man, where your punches would bounce off his big shoulders and chest, and his clubbing right would severe your head off when he hit you with his pet punch to the side of the neck.
Corbett was all for fighting without the gloves, it was John L. who called for the gloves to be compulsory in their fight, maybe because he didn`t want trouble from the law but most probable he didn`t want another foot-race like he always had with Mitchell.
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
You must have the same film of John L that theone has. I haven't had the privelage of actually seeing John L in action.tonyevs wrote:The Great John L. did not have the style to compete with todays heavyweights.
Yes, he was definitely in favor of a more civilized type of fighting, plus he was most proficient with his fists, rather than grappling.tonyevs wrote:The fact he preferred the gloved rules was simply because he did not like the prizefighting rules of going down and the round ending.
You are correct, when they fought with gloves. Of course, Mitchell didn't fare well in that contest. He did much better when they fought bareknuckle.tonyevs wrote:Charley Mitchel used these rules to great effect when he fought John L.
Yes, and this is true of anyone who excels in punching -- just ask George Foreman. But that in no way means that he was only capable of fighting in this manner. You don't hold the title for as long as Sullivan did without seeing just about any style imaginable. And certainly he saw many "runners", and beat everyone of them.tonyevs wrote:John L. Sullivan wanted you to stand in front of him, man`o`man, where your punches would bounce off his big shoulders and chest, and his clubbing right would severe your head off when he hit you with his pet punch to the side of the neck.
Yes, Corbett was willing to fight John L by any rules and at any venue. He knew that John L was pretty much at the end of his career, and that the bottle had taken the Great John L down a few notches.tonyevs wrote:Corbett was all for fighting without the gloves, it was John L. who called for the gloves to be compulsory in their fight, maybe because he didn`t want trouble from the law but most probable he didn`t want another foot-race like he always had with Mitchell.
But John L. felt he was in the best fighting shape, why else would he put a copy of the doctors examination in his shortly to be released autobiography.
For sure the damage had been done, but a fighter who moved like Corbett was something he was did not like or fully expect.
Let us not forget that John L. was only one of the recognised champions, kyle Fox hyped his own American champion at the time, and Charley Mitchel had put John L. down in a previous fight so I think he did better than you say.
Styles were so different, John L. was the best of that era at that particular style.
For sure the damage had been done, but a fighter who moved like Corbett was something he was did not like or fully expect.
Let us not forget that John L. was only one of the recognised champions, kyle Fox hyped his own American champion at the time, and Charley Mitchel had put John L. down in a previous fight so I think he did better than you say.
Styles were so different, John L. was the best of that era at that particular style.
-
tiredoldngrey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 23 May 2005, 12:36
I read once, and I wish I still had this book, where the man that trained Tunney early on said that John L. had the fastest and most accurate one-two combination he had ever seen, and he would get violently angry at people that underestimated John L..
As far as old styles and modern styles, I saw Lewis and K fight and to me, the stances used and the way in which they sparred looked like something from the late 1700s, and had either of them had the know-how to throw a solar plexus punch that man would have won the fight early, modern training methods be damned.
Strategy-wise, it seems to me that, in a fight to the finish, bare knuckles, that strategy and conditioning would be huge much more so than in today's era of athleticism. You obviously couldn't wail away to end the fight quickly, lest you get winded, broken fisted and all at the same time. Also, defense had to be much more important than most of us want to allow. And not just putting your hands along your head or blocking with the arms, as they would be taking as much damage as the place they protecty. In other words, I suspect the defense used then was more subtle, involving swaying out of range, rolliung with punches, and parrying and/or deflecting them. Plus, counterpunching was probably more precise, if done one punch at a time. This is in order to protect the hands. You would learn to avoid this punch and place your own as to do maximum damage w/minimum risk to your hands. Today the empasis is on a bunch of punches and few land cleanly.
Whether John L or Corbett could beat anybody else is almost impossible to tell, not knowing the individuals, but as to whether or not those men, who rose to the top in their era, could compete with those that are underachievers in their own era, that's not fair or legitimate. I would suggest that a guy who could make himself fight and win over 2 1/2 hours in the rain, would beat Kirk Johnson at anything from Backgammonb to Playstation games. A better question is whether or not the heavyweights of today would have the sand to have competed in 1896.
As far as old styles and modern styles, I saw Lewis and K fight and to me, the stances used and the way in which they sparred looked like something from the late 1700s, and had either of them had the know-how to throw a solar plexus punch that man would have won the fight early, modern training methods be damned.
Strategy-wise, it seems to me that, in a fight to the finish, bare knuckles, that strategy and conditioning would be huge much more so than in today's era of athleticism. You obviously couldn't wail away to end the fight quickly, lest you get winded, broken fisted and all at the same time. Also, defense had to be much more important than most of us want to allow. And not just putting your hands along your head or blocking with the arms, as they would be taking as much damage as the place they protecty. In other words, I suspect the defense used then was more subtle, involving swaying out of range, rolliung with punches, and parrying and/or deflecting them. Plus, counterpunching was probably more precise, if done one punch at a time. This is in order to protect the hands. You would learn to avoid this punch and place your own as to do maximum damage w/minimum risk to your hands. Today the empasis is on a bunch of punches and few land cleanly.
Whether John L or Corbett could beat anybody else is almost impossible to tell, not knowing the individuals, but as to whether or not those men, who rose to the top in their era, could compete with those that are underachievers in their own era, that's not fair or legitimate. I would suggest that a guy who could make himself fight and win over 2 1/2 hours in the rain, would beat Kirk Johnson at anything from Backgammonb to Playstation games. A better question is whether or not the heavyweights of today would have the sand to have competed in 1896.
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
Could the Red Baron compete in a WW I biplane against an F-16?
No.
Is the comparison fair? No also.
Sullivan with his technique of 120 years ago could not compete with todays fighters. Now, if you take that Sullivan and give him modern skills, he would be a formidable fighter.
Let us not forget, he only lost one fight in his life, when he was way past his peak and still went 21 rounds --most modern heavyweights would collapse before seventen- he had very good power in either hand and in his youth had been considered a fast fighter.
Read Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," before considering him just a tough man. He was way better than that, he was unbeaten for many years and very feared.
No.
Is the comparison fair? No also.
Sullivan with his technique of 120 years ago could not compete with todays fighters. Now, if you take that Sullivan and give him modern skills, he would be a formidable fighter.
Let us not forget, he only lost one fight in his life, when he was way past his peak and still went 21 rounds --most modern heavyweights would collapse before seventen- he had very good power in either hand and in his youth had been considered a fast fighter.
Read Izenberg's "John L Sullivan and his America," before considering him just a tough man. He was way better than that, he was unbeaten for many years and very feared.