BoxRec

John L Sullivan versus Peter Jackson

How does it pan out? This is not two men in their mythical primes this is a fight in 1890.

This is fought in accordance of the rules of the day. Consider it as a fight to the finish unless anyone knows otherwise.

(If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another)

Wasn't Sullivan the king of bare-knuckle?

Yes, but Sullivan wore gloves in many of his fights.

Ezzard wrote:John L Sullivan versus Peter Jackson

How does it pan out? This is not two men in their mythical primes this is a fight in 1890.

This is fought in accordance of the rules of the day. Consider it as a fight to the finish unless anyone knows otherwise.

(If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another)

Ezz: Marquis of Queensberry or London Prize Ring rules?

Peter Jackson would have beaten an over the hill John L in 1890

Jackson definitely, Sullivan was far past his best by 1890.

Any quotes from the day about either?

That "elephantine" quote on the other thread has left me wanting to hear more from the golden age.

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:John L Sullivan versus Peter Jackson

How does it pan out? This is not two men in their mythical primes this is a fight in 1890.

This is fought in accordance of the rules of the day. Consider it as a fight to the finish unless anyone knows otherwise.

(If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another)

Ezz: Marquis of Queensberry or London Prize Ring rules?

What do you feel fits with the time? You know much more about this than me.

dempseyfire wrote:Jackson definitely, Sullivan was far past his best by 1890.

I simply checked their records to find a year when Jackson had probably done enough to definitely earn a shot. Do you think there could be a better year?

Ezzard wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:John L Sullivan versus Peter Jackson

How does it pan out? This is not two men in their mythical primes this is a fight in 1890.

This is fought in accordance of the rules of the day. Consider it as a fight to the finish unless anyone knows otherwise.

(If the historians among you think the year for this fight is inappropriate then please suggest another)

Ezz: Marquis of Queensberry or London Prize Ring rules?

What do you feel fits with the time? You know much more about this than me.

Hmmmmm . . . Well, I don't know if I am that much more knowledgeable than you - you are quite astute. Although the fans seemed to prefer LPR rules for heavyweight championship bouts, Sullivan preferred the MQ. And as far as I know, Jackson never had a fight under the bare knuckle rules. So, they would settle most likely on MQ rules. In that period, it would have been a finish fight.

Because Sully was a racist and couldn’t tolerate the idea of losing to a black man, I suspect he would have come into the fight in the best shape of his life. In that case, I think he would have eventually worn Jackson down and stopped him late – maybe in the late 20-30 rounds. However, I think it’s really a pick ‘em fight, and that’s how I marked my ballot above. But if I had to choose, I’d say Sully.

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Jackson definitely, Sullivan was far past his best by 1890.

I simply checked their records to find a year when Jackson had probably done enough to definitely earn a shot. Do you think there could be a better year?

No, 1890 is an excellent year for that one. Jackson burst on the scene in America in late 1888 with wins over George Godfrey and the undefeated Joe McAuliffe. Sully, however, was tied up with Kilrain in '89, so the earliest date they could realistically have fought would have been '90.

Darling wrote:Any quotes from the day about either?

That "elephantine" quote on the other thread has left me wanting to hear more from the golden age.

Here's a quote for you:

"When you're away, I'm restless, lonely, wretched, bored, dejected; only here's the rub, my darling dear, I feel the same when you're near." - Samuel Hoffenstein

I would lean toward Jackson at this time. Sullivan was 32 and it was probably an old 32. He had just came off a brutal fight with Kilrain which had to take something out out of him. Jackson was in his prime. Still, you can't count Sullivan out. He would have seen Jackson as a serious threat and would have trained hard. Jackson was not as hard to hit as Corbett and Sullivan would have been a couple years younger than when he fought Corbett.

I think if he were to fight a black man, it would have been the only thing able to motivate John L back into a training camp with Muldoon. And Muldoon would have whipped him into shape like he did for the Kilrain fight. in wich case my money would be on Sullivan