Page 1 of 1
John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 14 Mar 2023, 22:05
by HomicideHenry
The first gloved champion vs arguably the weakest of the 20th century heavyweight champions. 8oz gloves, 15 rounds. Referee Ruby Goldstein, the referee for the 1st Marciano-Charles bout. We need somebody who is not squeamish acting as the third man in the ring.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 01:16
by DrDuke
Show me the footage of Sullivan.
Or will it be enough to watch videos of pub fights on youtube to get a picture?
Still the Neon Leon was beaten by Tex 'King of Pubs' Cobb. Although being well past prime. Yet with Cobb being declined too.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 10:47
by tiny_acres
DrDuke wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 01:16
Show me the footage of Sullivan.
Or will it be enough to watch videos of pub fights on youtube to get a picture?
Still the Neon Leon was beaten by Tex 'King of Pubs' Cobb. Although being well past prime. Yet with Cobb being declined too.
These are the topics where you and i agree 100%
It is impossible for me to give an opinion on a fighter that I can only read about.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 16:04
by giacomino
DrDuke wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 01:16
Show me the footage of Sullivan.
Or will it be enough to watch videos of pub fights on youtube to get a picture?
Still the Neon Leon was beaten by Tex 'King of Pubs' Cobb.
Although being well past prime. Yet with Cobb being declined too.
I think Leon's prime was about one or two fights in the 1970s
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 17:36
by oogiebe
Having watched a ton of film on John L., I believe that...wait...um...nevermind.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 17:37
by oogiebe
Cue Alpy...
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 21:12
by HomicideHenry
I don't think you need to film when you had a man who was champion of the world for 12 years under 2 different sets of rules, and his opponent is a man who couldn't keep the title for 6 months.
There is plenty of documentation on Sullivan's fighting style. Contrary to popular opinion he was not some bar room brawler. He used a lot of feints, he was a good counter-puncher, he was explosive with his punches (punches in bunches) and he was said to be quick on his feet.
You guys are getting far too lazy on this forum when it comes to hypothetical matches because you refuse to do any of the research. It's a disgrace that you any of you can't come up with an opinion or to automatically award the guy on film versus the guy who wasn't on film. Leon Spinks was on the whole a bum.
The guy could not beat the limited and one dimensional Tex Cobb, who was a full blown coke addict at the time. The only reason why he is in the discussion at all is because Muhammad Ali cherry picked him because he was way passed his prime probably suffering from parkinson's disease at the time, and Spinks couldn't win the rematch.
John L Sullivan was a full blown alcoholic when he fought Jim Corbett and it still took 21 rounds to put him away. I honestly don't get you people not making an obvious choice. It's like how you guys completely discredited Harry Greb, the greatest middleweight of all time, simply because a fight film doesn't exist.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 22:40
by tiny_acres
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 21:12
I don't think you need to film when you had a man who was champion of the world for 12 years under 2 different sets of rules, and his opponent is a man who couldn't keep the title for 6 months.
There is plenty of documentation on Sullivan's fighting style. Contrary to popular opinion he was not some bar room brawler. He used a lot of feints, he was a good counter-puncher, he was explosive with his punches (punches in bunches) and he was said to be quick on his feet.
You guys are getting far too lazy on this forum when it comes to hypothetical matches because you refuse to do any of the research. It's a disgrace that you any of you can't come up with an opinion or to automatically award the guy on film versus the guy who wasn't on film. Leon Spinks was on the whole a bum.
The guy could not beat the limited and one dimensional Tex Cobb, who was a full blown coke addict at the time. The only reason why he is in the discussion at all is because Muhammad Ali cherry picked him because he was way passed his prime probably suffering from parkinson's disease at the time, and Spinks couldn't win the rematch.
John L Sullivan was a full blown alcoholic when he fought Jim Corbett and it still took 21 rounds to put him away. I honestly don't get you people not making an obvious choice. It's like how you guys completely discredited Harry Greb, the greatest middleweight of all time, simply because a fight film doesn't exist.
No one is discrediting Sullivan or Greb. What is being said is that we can not make an informed decision without seeing their styles. We can read about it all we want, but that does not show us what you believe to be fact.
Not insulting any of the former legends. Some of us require proof not just news articles
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 15 Mar 2023, 23:34
by HomicideHenry
tiny_acres wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 22:40
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 21:12
I don't think you need to film when you had a man who was champion of the world for 12 years under 2 different sets of rules, and his opponent is a man who couldn't keep the title for 6 months.
There is plenty of documentation on Sullivan's fighting style. Contrary to popular opinion he was not some bar room brawler. He used a lot of feints, he was a good counter-puncher, he was explosive with his punches (punches in bunches) and he was said to be quick on his feet.
You guys are getting far too lazy on this forum when it comes to hypothetical matches because you refuse to do any of the research. It's a disgrace that you any of you can't come up with an opinion or to automatically award the guy on film versus the guy who wasn't on film. Leon Spinks was on the whole a bum.
The guy could not beat the limited and one dimensional Tex Cobb, who was a full blown coke addict at the time. The only reason why he is in the discussion at all is because Muhammad Ali cherry picked him because he was way passed his prime probably suffering from parkinson's disease at the time, and Spinks couldn't win the rematch.
John L Sullivan was a full blown alcoholic when he fought Jim Corbett and it still took 21 rounds to put him away. I honestly don't get you people not making an obvious choice. It's like how you guys completely discredited Harry Greb, the greatest middleweight of all time, simply because a fight film doesn't exist.
No one is discrediting Sullivan or Greb. What is being said is that we can not make an informed decision without seeing their styles. We can read about it all we want, but that does not show us what you believe to be fact.
Not insulting any of the former legends. Some of us require proof not just news articles
Articles are proof.
Punch by punch analysis from multiple sources at ringside is as good as it's going to get. Based on your on your logic you can't believe anything that ever happened in history prior to the creation of a motion picture camera.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 07:18
by tiny_acres
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 23:34
tiny_acres wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 22:40
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 21:12
I don't think you need to film when you had a man who was champion of the world for 12 years under 2 different sets of rules, and his opponent is a man who couldn't keep the title for 6 months.
There is plenty of documentation on Sullivan's fighting style. Contrary to popular opinion he was not some bar room brawler. He used a lot of feints, he was a good counter-puncher, he was explosive with his punches (punches in bunches) and he was said to be quick on his feet.
You guys are getting far too lazy on this forum when it comes to hypothetical matches because you refuse to do any of the research. It's a disgrace that you any of you can't come up with an opinion or to automatically award the guy on film versus the guy who wasn't on film. Leon Spinks was on the whole a bum.
The guy could not beat the limited and one dimensional Tex Cobb, who was a full blown coke addict at the time. The only reason why he is in the discussion at all is because Muhammad Ali cherry picked him because he was way passed his prime probably suffering from parkinson's disease at the time, and Spinks couldn't win the rematch.
John L Sullivan was a full blown alcoholic when he fought Jim Corbett and it still took 21 rounds to put him away. I honestly don't get you people not making an obvious choice. It's like how you guys completely discredited Harry Greb, the greatest middleweight of all time, simply because a fight film doesn't exist.
No one is discrediting Sullivan or Greb. What is being said is that we can not make an informed decision without seeing their styles. We can read about it all we want, but that does not show us what you believe to be fact.
Not insulting any of the former legends. Some of us require proof not just news articles
Articles are proof.
Punch by punch analysis from multiple sources at ringside is as good as it's going to get. Based on your on your logic you can't believe anything that ever happened in history prior to the creation of a motion picture camera.
History of the world events and analyzing 2 athletes who you can't see are completely different.
But I expect you could not understand this.
Have a good day
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 07:28
by HomicideHenry
tiny_acres wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 07:18
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 23:34
tiny_acres wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023, 22:40
No one is discrediting Sullivan or Greb. What is being said is that we can not make an informed decision without seeing their styles. We can read about it all we want, but that does not show us what you believe to be fact.
Not insulting any of the former legends. Some of us require proof not just news articles
Articles are proof.
Punch by punch analysis from multiple sources at ringside is as good as it's going to get. Based on your on your logic you can't believe anything that ever happened in history prior to the creation of a motion picture camera.
History of the world events and analyzing 2 athletes who you can't see are completely different.
But I expect you could not understand this.
Have a good day
Nonsense.
That's like saying you could not grasp the character or the abilities of a man like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington or Julius Ceasar or Jesus Christ Almighty God because you didn't hear them or see them.
You may as well say, "There is no footage of Alexander the Great or his opponents so therefore we must assume that he wasn’t so great and his opposition must have been piss poor because he defeated them."
With the sport of boxing you have round by round descriptions. You have eyewitnesses to the events. You have film of some men he fought to grasp how good he might've been. You have first hand descriptions of his training methods, fighting style, etc.
In short you basically have a manual much like a car has a manual telling you everything about the car before you drive it. If that ain't enough then no amount of footage you could ever see would ever change your opinion.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 08:22
by oogiebe
Articles and other written words from onlookers who never saw any fighter over the last 100 years is just plain stupid.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 10:14
by tiny_acres
oogiebe wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 08:22
Articles and other written words from onlookers who never saw any fighter over the last 100 years is just plain stupid.
He can not comprehend factual historical information from opinion pieces.
Not seeing George Washington does not negate that he was the first president.
But not knowing actually how fast, actual styles of fighters, ring IQ, jab, counter punching etc
is completely different. I have to see these things to make a fair judgement on any fighter.
Taking an op-ed from some 100 plus year old news paper from a reporter is not what is needed to judge a fighter.
People drive me nuts with this crap.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 11:29
by HomicideHenry
oogiebe wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 08:22
Articles and other written words from onlookers who never saw any fighter over the last 100 years is just plain stupid.
What the h*** are you talking about when there was eyewitnesses to the events in place???? Those reporters at ringside saw several fights throughout their journalistic careers.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 19:22
by goose 5
I'll use Jimmy McClarnin and Tony Canzoneri as examples of why I prefer to see a man fight. Years ago, I read lots of newspaper articles about them and how great they were. When I started collecting fight films I was profoundly disappointed in them; I think Joe Brown, Ike Williams and Jimmy Carter destroy them. I think it was Lou Gross who ranked Canzoneri #1 at lightweight. Gross was in boxing all his life and I respect his knowledge greatly but I can't agree with his opinion in this regard.
Re: John L. Sullivan vs Leon Spinks
Posted: 16 Mar 2023, 20:50
by oogiebe
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 11:29
oogiebe wrote: ↑16 Mar 2023, 08:22
Articles and other written words from onlookers who never saw any fighter over the last 100 years is just plain stupid.
What the h*** are you talking about when there was eyewitnesses to the events in place???? Those reporters at ringside saw several fights throughout their journalistic careers.
You don't read very well. Every one of those eyewitnesses never saw Ali; Foreman; Holmes; Tyson; Lewis, Louis; Liston; Marciano etc. So at the time they write how great those fighters are (were). No basis for comparison.