BoxRec

I read in a book he is considered the first"modern"Heavyweight Champion of the World. from 1882-1892.
So,why they (boxing experts)keep saying Larry Holmes had second longest reign next to Joe Louis?
I dont know about You,but Im sick of dissers trying to revise history.

Brutu wrote:I read in a book he is considered the first"modern"Heavyweight Champion of the World. from 1882-1892.
So,why they (boxing experts)keep saying Larry Holmes had second longest reign next to Joe Louis?
I dont know about You,but Im sick of dissers trying to revise history.

I agree.

Always on the level. John L. Sullivan

this may be a little off topic, but how come when people talk about john L, they mention that he could fight for hours, and go 100 rounds, when the only fight that he had that went more then 8 rounds was against james j corbett...?

well part of the reason why noone mentions this is because, the modern heavyweight champion, never arrived until the queensbury rules were in effect in a heavyweight title match. since john L. won the first heavyweight title fight under the queensbury rules, in 1885 against domminick mccaffrey, that mean he onlky had 4 successful defences during his reign as a modern heavyweight champion. i understand he had alot more before this, but they are differnt because they do not abide by the rules of modern boxing, the queensbury rules

Rory McCloskey wrote:well part of the reason why noone mentions this is because, the modern heavyweight champion, never arrived until the queensbury rules were in effect in a heavyweight title match. since john L. won the first heavyweight title fight under the queensbury rules, in 1885 against domminick mccaffrey, that mean he onlky had 4 successful defences during his reign as a modern heavyweight champion. i understand he had alot more before this, but they are differnt because they do not abide by the rules of modern boxing, the queensbury rules

You are correct sir

When he became the "Heavyweight Champion of America" in 1882 by defeating Paddy Ryan, they were using the rules of London Prize Ring. Queensbury rules weren't used by Sullivan until 1885.

I think it is important to note, although Sullivan didn't have many "official" defenses, he fought many many exhibitions (all of which he reportedly made the other opponents, including bare fist legends Joe Goss and Joe Coburn, look like amateurs). Not only that, it seems that there is a good chance some of his fights were not documented (or have yet to be).

i agree.. i would definatley see it possible that several maybe alot of his fights are missing.

iceman21287 wrote:Is it just me or does there seem to have been a large influx of assholes like headbanger into the forums lately?

i totally agree, a month ago everything was civil and we had no assholes, and the forum was more lively with boxing talk. the past month everyones been silent and it seems we attracted more and more rubios.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

iceman21287 wrote:Is it just me or does there seem to have been a large influx of assholes like headbanger into the forums lately?

i totally agree, a month ago everything was civil and we had no assholes, and the forum was more lively with boxing talk. the past month everyones been silent and it seems we attracted more and more rubios.

Yeah it seems that the rubio's of the world have attracted copycat rubio's. I'd have to think that most of the posters are immature 13 or 14 year olds who think it's funny to curse on the internet. I can't imagine many are over the age of 18. If they are...they really need to find better things to do with their time.

Rory McCloskey wrote:i agree.. i would definatley see it possible that several maybe alot of his fights are missing.

You make a great point about Sullivan's much lauded over "stamina." While it is possible that Sullivan did have great stamina...it was never actually proven in the ring. The only (known) time Sullivan went any length at all was the Corbett fight in 1892.

Also, for those not familiar with London Prize Ring rules, a round under these rules ends when an opponent is knocked down/kneels down. So, theoretically, a 60 round London Prize Ring fight might be as short or even shorter than a 15 round Queensbury fight.

Although most did not go very long due to John L's superiority, he did have a few marathon bareknuckle bouts.

vs Kilrain -- 75 rounds and 2 hrs 16 mins

v Mitchell -- 39 rds and 3 hrs 10 mins

Like all great fighters John L had no quit in him.

Also it's hard to justify Holmes reign as the second longest, since he held only part of the championship and made no effort to unify. And before I get flamed, I rate Holmes #4 all time.

Holmes was considered the legitimate (lineal) champion after he beat Muhammad Ali in 1980.

SteveO wrote:Holmes was considered the legitimate (lineal) champion after he beat Muhammad Ali in 1980.

He wasn't the lineal champion, and he only held a portion of the title. In fact, the true lineal champ would have been the winner of the tournament to replace Ali after he retired -- Big John Tate!!

What?John L. Sullivan never went more then 8 rounds?
You never heard of the 75 rounder he went with Jake Kilrain
in July.8. 1889, at a lumber camp in Richburg Mississipi?
That was I believe a bare knuckled championship contest.
Those sound like tougher bouts then wearing gloves.
BTW That fight is considered by many boxing historians,as the first
"Great Fightest ".

The Great John L wrote:Also it's hard to justify Holmes reign as the second longest, since he held only part of the championship and made no effort to unify. And before I get flamed, I rate Holmes #4 all time.

Yeah,its like sort of when Mike Tyson knocked out Trevor"Im crazier then a sh*thouse rat"Berbick.A lot didnt even really consider Tyson really champ until he knocked out Michael Spinks.Who I dont think had a belt at the time because he refused to fight someone,whose name I cant recall.

The Great John L wrote:Although most did not go very long due to John L's superiority, he did have a few marathon bareknuckle bouts.

vs Kilrain -- 75 rounds and 2 hrs 16 mins

v Mitchell -- 39 rds and 3 hrs 10 mins

Like all great fighters John L had no quit in him.

ohh no i totally agree, im just talking about his "professional" record as a modern era boxer. he was clearly a warrior.

The Great John L wrote:Although most did not go very long due to John L's superiority, he did have a few marathon bareknuckle bouts.

vs Kilrain -- 75 rounds and 2 hrs 16 mins

v Mitchell -- 39 rds and 3 hrs 10 mins

Like all great fighters John L had no quit in him.

Rory McCloskey wrote:this may be a little off topic, but how come when people talk about john L, they mention that he could fight for hours, and go 100 rounds, when the only fight that he had that went more then 8 rounds was against james j corbett...?

But obviously he could fight for hours.

Brutu wrote:Yeah,its like sort of when Mike Tyson knocked out Trevor"Im crazier then a sh*thouse rat"Berbick.A lot didnt even really consider Tyson really champ until he knocked out Michael Spinks.Who I dont think had a belt at the time because he refused to fight someone,whose name I cant recall.

Tony Tucker.

The Great John L wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Although most did not go very long due to John L's superiority, he did have a few marathon bareknuckle bouts.

vs Kilrain -- 75 rounds and 2 hrs 16 mins

v Mitchell -- 39 rds and 3 hrs 10 mins

Like all great fighters John L had no quit in him.

Rory McCloskey wrote:this may be a little off topic, but how come when people talk about john L, they mention that he could fight for hours, and go 100 rounds, when the only fight that he had that went more then 8 rounds was against james j corbett...?

But obviously he could fight for hours.

theres no question in my mind that he could go on and on and on, but how come he never fought some really long proffesional fights until corbett..i thought alot more longer fights would be scheduled back in those days, escpecially for the champ