BoxRec

First heavyweight champ vs. Most recently crowned heavyweight champ

Nice idea. As crazy aas it is to predict this fight my gut feeling is simply that Sullivan can probably just take more than Haye and for that reason would win a thrilling fight.

It depends on the rounds in my opinion, and whether they were Bare Knuckle. If 20 rounds and bare knuckle then Sullivan would KO him.

Over 12 with gloves the fight would be a lot closer, I still think Sullivan might wear him down though.

I just wanted to see if we would follow the unofficial boxrec rules of picking the older generation boxer over the more recent one.

David Haye easy; gloves or not.

zojo, wrote:I just wanted to see if we would follow the unofficial boxrec rules of picking the older generation boxer over the more recent one.

You'd need to post a lot more fantasy match ups to prove that hypothesis.

theone wrote:David Haye easy; gloves or not.

Agreed

Ezzard wrote:

zojo, wrote:I just wanted to see if we would follow the unofficial boxrec rules of picking the older generation boxer over the more recent one.

You'd need to post a lot more fantasy match ups to prove that hypothesis.

Or just read the threads, if the fight is near even the new fighter doesn't have a prayer with the consensus on here. Not saying that is a bad thing, the forum is Boxers of the past.

It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

Controversial wrote:It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

Okay, how do you think Haye would have done against Sullivan if Haye had been born in 1860 and fought Sully in 1885 under MQ rules of that day?

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

Okay, how do you think Haye would have done against Sullivan if Haye had been born in 1860 and fought Sully in 1885 under MQ rules of that day?

Trouble is if Haye was born in 1860 then he wouldn't have the boxing skill or physical advantages he has now. You can only compare fighters to how they actually were or are.

Controversial wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

Okay, how do you think Haye would have done against Sullivan if Haye had been born in 1860 and fought Sully in 1885 under MQ rules of that day?

Trouble is if Haye was born in 1860 then he wouldn't have the boxing skill or physical advantages he has now. You can only compare fighters to how they actually were or are.

That's my point exactly. How then can you criticize John L. by saying he was too primitive when he never had the opportunity to train and learn under today's "modern" standards?

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Okay, how do you think Haye would have done against Sullivan if Haye had been born in 1860 and fought Sully in 1885 under MQ rules of that day?

Trouble is if Haye was born in 1860 then he wouldn't have the boxing skill or physical advantages he has now. You can only compare fighters to how they actually were or are.

That's my point exactly. How then can you criticize John L. by saying he was too primitive when he never had the opportunity to train and learn under today's "modern" standards?

Well, for my part i wasn't criticizing Sullivan for fighting the way he fought or when he fought. But the bottom line is he fought when he fought and how he fought and that wouldn't be enough to handle a modern heavyweight like Haye. I always try to stay away from quantifying these fantasy matches too much with well, what if he were born 70 years later or prior etc..
I think the best way to judge such mythic matches is between the fighter as they were or are. The only variables I would consider is something like realistically assessing that someone like Foreman with his size and frame would most likely weigh at least 15 pounds heavier if his prime were today.

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Okay, how do you think Haye would have done against Sullivan if Haye had been born in 1860 and fought Sully in 1885 under MQ rules of that day?

Trouble is if Haye was born in 1860 then he wouldn't have the boxing skill or physical advantages he has now. You can only compare fighters to how they actually were or are.

That's my point exactly. How then can you criticize John L. by saying he was too primitive when he never had the opportunity to train and learn under today's "modern" standards?

Im not criticising Sullivan, he was 'the man' in his era. That doesn't mean he would be 'the man' today. The thread is Sullivan vs Haye, all I'm saying is Haye would win. Haye is too skilled, fit, big and strong and would have far too much

theone wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Controversial wrote: Trouble is if Haye was born in 1860 then he wouldn't have the boxing skill or physical advantages he has now. You can only compare fighters to how they actually were or are.

That's my point exactly. How then can you criticize John L. by saying he was too primitive when he never had the opportunity to train and learn under today's "modern" standards?

Well, for my part i wasn't criticizing Sullivan for fighting the way he fought or when he fought. But the bottom line is he fought when he fought and how he fought and that wouldn't be enough to handle a modern heavyweight like Haye. I always try to stay away from quantifying these fantasy matches too much with well, what if he were born 70 years later or prior etc..
I think the best way to judge such mythic matches is between the fighter as they were or are. The only variables I would consider is something like realistically assessing that someone like Foreman with his size and frame would most likely weigh at least 15 pounds heavier if his prime were today.

Precisely why I don't do fantasy match-ups of guys from different eras: You can't do it fairly. Your approach is unfair to the old timer.

raylawpc wrote:

theone wrote:

raylawpc wrote: That's my point exactly. How then can you criticize John L. by saying he was too primitive when he never had the opportunity to train and learn under today's "modern" standards?

Well, for my part i wasn't criticizing Sullivan for fighting the way he fought or when he fought. But the bottom line is he fought when he fought and how he fought and that wouldn't be enough to handle a modern heavyweight like Haye. I always try to stay away from quantifying these fantasy matches too much with well, what if he were born 70 years later or prior etc..
I think the best way to judge such mythic matches is between the fighter as they were or are. The only variables I would consider is something like realistically assessing that someone like Foreman with his size and frame would most likely weigh at least 15 pounds heavier if his prime were today.

Precisely why I don't do fantasy match-ups of guys from different eras: You can't do it fairly. Your approach is unfair to the old timer.

I don't see it as unfair. It is what it is, that's all.

Based on the wealth of footage I have of a prime John L. Sullivan in his 50's throwing punches at Corbett and a punching bag for a combined 30 seconds, I'd pick him to win a hard-fought split decision in which both men are down twice. Sullivan's superior infighting ability is the decisive factor although Haye is able to land his counters from a distance.

Controversial wrote:It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

Haye had his struggles with the 168 lb Lolenga Mock.

What has to be taken into account is that these fast, well-conditioned middleweight-sized men could "abuse" the London Prize Ring rules system to their advantage, which is one of the reasons why Sullivan struggled so much with Charley Mitchell in a bareknuckle fight, a man he had already KO'd with gloves on. Mitchell would go down from glancing blows to avoid punishment and repeated it until Sullivan would get tired. Obviously it was a very one-sided bout but there was no end in sight due to Mitchell's tactics and thus the fight had to be declared a "draw", despite Mitchell not having inflicted any real damage on Sullivan.

It was a very different sport in those days, also fighting in the clinches was far more frequent and a strategy in itself. The "art" of clinch-fighting has almost died out since then although there are still men like John Ruiz and Ricky Hatton. Using your fast feet is to no advantage when the opponent grabs you, holds and hits you until you're completely worn out. With smaller gloves or no gloves at all (bareknuckle), hand issues also arise. You could beat on a Battling Nelson for 10 rounds and have him down 20 times but if you've broken your hands and the opponent still keeps coming in a fight to the finish, you're in big trouble. Taking into account the conditions the old timers fought under, you also can't risk hand injuries because that'd mean no pay for weeks or months, or going into a fight while still healing from an injury.

Thus it's easy to understand why they fought the way they did, and why boxing suddenly "evolved" after the rules were changed in the early 1900's.

Controversial wrote:It makes me laugh that there's misconception that every old time fighter is better than todays fighters. Sullivan fought in the 1880's, thats 130 years ago. Boxing was no way near as skilled and the rules were completely different. You only have to look at Sullivans record to see that several of his opponents weighed 150-160lbs, considering that Sullivan was 200+lbs that is some advantage. Have you seen the footage of Sullivan on Youtube trying use the speedball....Stevie Wonder could have done better.

If they fought under todays rules Haye was knock him back into the 1880's

The sport was different in Sullivan's day and the fighters were very skilled with styles fitting the requirements of the present rules and logistics of the game. Haye fighting in Sullivan's time with his style would end up with broken hands and a broken jaw. Likewise Sullivan in the modern day format would likely be outpointed over the distance. Comparing bareknucklers/very early Queensbury fighters to current fighters just doesn't work b/c the rules and settings were very different.

Now just skip 15 years later to Jack Johnson and he'd wipe Haye's ass all over the ring. Ditto with Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling etc.

Hell actually Burns-Haye would've been a great fight and I'll go with the more durable Tommy in that one.

In that era one would witness alot of 'dirty boxing' and all the elements
that boxing purists today despise in MMA.

The clinch was well... a clinch. You would work from it and in it, and
utilise it as part of your fight. Alot of Greco Roman was used in thems
days.

TheGreatA wrote:Based on the wealth of footage I have of a prime John L. Sullivan in his 50's throwing punches at Corbett and a punching bag for a combined 30 seconds, I'd pick him to win a hard-fought split decision in which both men are down twice. Sullivan's superior infighting ability is the decisive factor although Haye is able to land his counters from a distance.

Without the juice Haye would be the same size.

Basically, you've got 2 guys who like to punch it out. Haye is quicker. Sullivan more durable. They both hit very, very hard. This isn't like say Fitzsimmons versus Foreman where size seems too much of an issue.

IMO getting to the top in anything is more about psychology than anything else. If you were determined enough, and had enough athletic ability, to get to the top in your day then you'd be there, or thereabouts, in any era.

Sullivan would not fight Haye anyhow...

Haye is one of them coloured folks that men like
Sullivan avoided.

I think John would win with or without gloves. I'm sure John would prefer gloves, but could win this match-up either way. In a 12 round fight, with gloves, my best guess would be Sullivan by knockout in about 6 or 7 rounds, with the scorecards close. D

I see Haye winning. I know thats not the popular one here.
But I do not have that high an opinion of Sullivan. THOUGH
I shall admit like every one here I have not seen any
footage of him in his prime, so I can not really give that good
or an accurate opinion on such a match up. And I know
we can read accounts of him knocking over locomotives with
one bear swat of a right, or him carrying seven oxen in one
arm etc etc... I have also read such things about non
boxers and chinese chi masters etc...

But any man that turned up drunk when he was suppose
to be defending his strap, and then let the crowd down
by not fighting, shows a certain aspect of his character. I think
if a prize fighter turned up to a press conference some weeks
leading up to a fight in such a state alot of people here would
not be so kind to them, let alone turning up to a fight.
Its unfair to the crowd and the opponent...but then again
I know the past often is respected for laying the foundation
and roots of the great sport that is boxing. BUT some things
should not get passed, while the failings of more recent
fighters are always raised.