BoxRec

You can't really compare eras. But for being able to dominate the boxing scene for the time he did, Sullivan must have been an exceptional fighter. To put it this way, Sullivan was better at what was boxing then, than Valuev is at what is boxing now.

Sullivan went unbeaten against the best boxing had to offer back then. But regardless of how good/bad boxing was in Sullivan's era... how much does it say of the quality of today's boxing that Valuev is sitting on the throne?

I'm not saying Sullivans opponents would beat Valuev's opponents in head-to-head combat. But Sullivan's opponents were the best of his time. Many are listed as 0-0 because Boxrec doesn't list London Prize Ring bouts(we kinda make an exception for Sullivan). Even though Valuev's opponents can't be called the best of this time, Valuev's lucky to have his unbeaten record in tact. Tell me.... have you seen Valuev fight and were you impressed?

I think Valuev's the big freak that Sullivan would knock out for fun at carnivals.

Decagon wrote:Based on what?

The fact that the onyl thing Valuev has going for him is size. His jab is decent, but it's easily his best punch. He is slow to move and very plodding in the ring.

John L Sullivan KO 5 nicolay valuev

What is the point of this thread? Is it to debase John L. Sullivan? To build up modern era fighters? I mean Decagon what are you after here?
Sullivan is an icon of American History, the representation of the rugged individual who built this country. You are comparing him to a stiff--an absolute stiff--and I think in some way trying to claim that Sullivan and Valuev are on the same level. Ridiculous and quite frankly--ignorant.
John L. is not a modern fighter--he was a prizefighter, first and foremost--which is a great deal different than a boxer as we now know it--and then a MofQ fighter. You want to compare his times to today, the rules and conditions he fought under, the men he fought and how he fought to today. It is just not realistic. Boxing has not always been what you watch on HBO.
I'll answer your question though--John L. Sullivan was the far better fighter, period. How long do you think Mr. Valuev would last in LPR fight with John? Not very long. John had his faults but he was no run of the mill pug like Valuev.

yes, I was talking to John L. the other day about how he has not yet entered the BOXREC HOF, and the subject of Valuev came up. John L told me that he would spar with 7'8" Garganchor Balbazar. Good ol' John L would put this giant , Balbazar, on the floor everytime they met. I popped in the tape John L had me get on Valuev and we proceeded to study up on the Russian Giant, and John L saw striking similatities with Valuev and Balbazar. Seeing how slow of foot Valuev was, John L said he would tire him out and finish him off in the 10th round. By the way he doesnt mind that it will take a month or two on that whole HOF thing.

Head to head as they actually fought, Sullivan gets beaten handily. Boxing in his day was definitly not what we see on HBO today...its better now. I dont know why people insist on turning turn of the century fighters into superheroes. Sullivans style of boxing would not have won him a golden glove tournanment today. Maybe a tough man title at local bar. Maybe.

theone wrote:Head to head as they actually fought, Sullivan gets beaten handily. Boxing in his day was definitly not what we see on HBO today...its better now. I dont know why people insist on turning turn of the century fighters into superheroes. Sullivans style of boxing would not have won him a golden glove tournanment today. Maybe a tough man title at local bar. Maybe.

I don't think there's much point in this comparison though. I think if Sullivan and Valuev trained for a bout together and both lived in today's world then Sullivan would beat him handily. If they both lived and trained in Sullivan's day then once again Sullivan would beat him easily. Sullivan would fight in a style that suited the era as would Valuev.

John L Sullivan was the best fighter of his day, the 1880s. Although his style is completely different, and crude compared to today's style of boxing, the fact that he was the best fighter of his period (give or take Peter Jackson), would suggest that he is an exceptional fighter and would have the talent to adapt to todays style if he were trained in the modern way. Valuev is no more than a handy European level fighter and John L was the best of his day, if they both met in the same era John L would batter him

dr_devious wrote:John L Sullivan was the best fighter of his day, the 1880s. Although his style is completely different, and crude compared to today's style of boxing, the fact that he was the best fighter of his period (give or take Peter Jackson), would suggest that he is an exceptional fighter and would have the talent to adapt to todays style if he were trained in the modern way. Valuev is no more than a handy European level fighter and John L was the best of his day, if they both met in the same era John L would batter him

agreed

Sullivan wins under the old London Prize ring rules by hip tossing Valuev on his noggin. Valuev wins under Marquis of Queensbery rules by dec. with a long jab. Sullivan wins in the saloon with a kick to the nuts and a barstool to the head.

expug wrote:Sullivan wins under the old London Prize ring rules by hip tossing Valuev on his noggin. Valuev wins under Marquis of Queensbery rules by dec. with a long jab. Sullivan wins in the saloon with a kick to the nuts and a barstool to the head.

What about scissors/paper/stone?

Decagon wrote:Sullivan was the best man of his day... among white, English speaking boxers. How is that any better than being, for instance, the Russian Heavyweight Champion today?

Just how many Russian heavyweights exist?

Valuev would beat Sullivan if they fought. However, why does that matter? Charley Radbourn and Jim Galvin couldn't pitch effectively against modern baseball players. Cap Anson couldn't have hit effectively against modern baseball pitchers. Comparing a fighter from over a century ago to a fighter today is just stupid and a waste of time. Of course a fighter today could beat a fighter from 100 + years ago. That's just common sense. The sport, under Marquis of Queensbury, was just coming into existence when John L. was around. I mean, why don't we compare George Mikan to Shaquille O'Neal and Red Grange to Barry Sanders while we're at it? Or Tiger Woods to Bobby Jones? Damn, Decagon, if the whole reason for this thread is to prove that Nicolay Valuev could beat John L. Sullivan in a fight, well no shit. And guess what? John L. Sullivan would have beat James Figg, Jack Broughton and Peter Corcoran (if you even know who they are), without breaking a sweat. Comparing era's that are so clearly different is insane and a waste of everyone's time. Saying that Valuev could beat Sullivan doesn't mean anything. I mean, shit, guys like Sinan Samil Sam could beat Sullivan. But Sullivan, for the era in which he fought, was one of the two (along with Peter Jackson) greatest heavyweights in the world. He was the Babe Ruth of boxing and to give him no respect for essentially bringing the sport from illegality to nation wide popularity shows you have no grasp of the history of boxing.

Sullivan would beat the shit out of the slow, very methodical, very cumbersome and very, very ordinary Valuev. Based on that fact that Sullivan was just simply a hell of a lot better fighter in every aspect than Valuev ever will be. Sullivan would bust Valuev up and really hurt him as Sullivan was one of the most physical and strongest fighters that ever stepped in the ring, but he was a lot more than just physical, he could certainly box very well to. You really need to pick up a copy of "John L. Sullivan and His America." It will tell you all that you need to know about Sullivan.

Decagon--Since you seem to be asking everyone else why...why don't you answer it...and give an answer that is actually based on something other than assumption, you know something with some actual sources and that is backed by actual facts!

Honestly, to even mention Valuev along with Sullivan shows just a complete lack of knowledge because if you really knew anything about Sullivan, you sure as hell would not be trying to make claims about any of today's "patsy" heavyweights being in his league, especially Valuev! Like Kevin said, Valuev is the type of fighter that Sullivan knocked out whenever he went barnstorming across the country facing the toughest and biggest man of whatever town he was in...that is they type of fighter Valuev is and Sullivan would have destroyed him!

P.S. I notice that the vote is 11 to 1, I take it you voted the one...WHY?

Valuev would beat Sullivan if they fought. However, why does that matter? Charley Radbourn and Jim Galvin couldn't pitch effectively against modern baseball players. Cap Anson couldn't have hit effectively against modern baseball pitchers. Comparing a fighter from over a century ago to a fighter today is just stupid and a waste of time. Of course a fighter today could beat a fighter from 100 + years ago. That's just common sense.

Common sense aint so common on this site, iceman. Its funny to me how people can argue in favor of a fighters a century ago could compete with more modern fighters. Dempsey beating Valuev I can see, Louis most definitly, but Sullivan? Redicules. Its seems boxing is the only sport where this dellusion exists.

>>>Its seems boxing is the only sport where this dellusion exists<<<


Really, it's only boxing? Again you show just how little you really know! Baseball for instance...do you honestly thing that there will ever be a hitter to even come close to a Ty Cobb, or Babe Ruth? Or how about pitchers...you think anyone will ever put up the kinds of numbers Walter Johnson, or Pete Alexander did? No they won't and you will be hard pressed to find someone, who actually knows what they are talking about, who will not say that Walter Johnson was probably the best pitcher who ever lived, Ruth the greatest slugger and Cobb the greatest all-around ball player.

The only sports where size and skill have really made a difference is in basketball and football. Baseball and boxing, well size rarely ever means dick, and skill, well the early fighters were a hell of a lot more skilled than the moderns fighters of today. One big difference is that the modern fighter would rather look good stylish-wise, pretty and lose while the early fighter would rather look bad stylish-wise and win. The big difference, the early fighters actually knew how to fight, they could adapt to whatever style was in front of them and make whatever adjustments was needed. How many of today’s fighters do you actually see who can adapt?

What I see more than anything with today's fighters is that they come into a bout with one plan, one style and if that does not work then they are in big trouble and usually lose! Modern fighters just do not take the time to learn their craft. They will fight low caliber, weak competition until they have a real pretty looking record and they will look great knocking out these everyday Joe's and then they get in with someone who has learned to fight and the pretty record all of a sudden has a blemish and a lot of times that blemish will end a fighter's career, but that's what happens when fighters are brought up, like they are today!

The only “delusion” is that from those very, very few of you who actually think you know something, but which is so plainly obvious to everyone else, and I do mean everyone else, that you have absolutely no clue. I can really understand why America is falling way behind in education compared to the rest of the world. Hell, some people have quit reading and just started assuming, I guess because it takes no effort to just assume something. I bet you both believe that people can actually tell the future to?

With a little reading you could actually learn something instead of staying in the dark on the topic and always looking just...well just plain dumb! It’s no secret to anyone that you two know very, very little about the time, one of you already said that “The Bare Knuckle Breed” was the extent of your research on the era and I’m sorry, but you both have a long, long way to go before either of you should try to comment on boxing from this era. What’s sad is that you never learn a single thing from the constant errors and mistakes that you make day after day; you just go from one ridiculous comment straight into another without missing a step! With some effort and some reading you could actually learn something instead of staying in the dark on the topic and looking just...well just plain dumb!

Oh, for the record...I didn't say that Sullivan was stronger that Valuev, pay better attention, besides a bench press doesn't mean shit when it comes to punching power. I've seen guys that could bench 500 pounds who would be lucky to crack an egg with a punch! I've also seen big, strong guys get taken to school on a mat by people barely more than half the big guys size! Nothing of that nature matters one bit when it comes to fighting, especially boxing!

barry wrote:>>>Its seems boxing is the only sport where this dellusion exists<<<


Really, it's only boxing? Again you show just how little you really know! Baseball for instance...do you honestly thing that there will ever be a hitter to even come close to a Ty Cobb, or Babe Ruth? Or how about pitchers...you think anyone will ever put up the kinds of numbers Walter Johnson, or Pete Alexander did? No they won't and you will be hard pressed to find someone, who actually knows what they are talking about, who will not say that Walter Johnson was probably the best pitcher who ever lived, Ruth the greatest slugger and Cobb the greatest all-around ball player.

The only sports where size and skill have really made a difference is in basketball and football. Baseball and boxing, well size rarely ever means dick, and skill, well the early fighters were a hell of a lot more skilled than the moderns fighters of today. One big difference is that the modern fighter would rather look good stylish-wise, pretty and lose while the early fighter would rather look bad stylish-wise and win. The big difference, the early fighters actually knew how to fight, they could adapt to whatever style was in front of them and make whatever adjustments was needed. How many of today’s fighters do you actually see who can adapt?

What I see more than anything with today's fighters is that they come into a bout with one plan, one style and if that does not work then they are in big trouble and usually lose! Modern fighters just do not take the time to learn their craft. They will fight low caliber, weak competition until they have a real pretty looking record and they will look great knocking out these everyday Joe's and then they get in with someone who has learned to fight and the pretty record all of a sudden has a blemish and a lot of times that blemish will end a fighter's career, but that's what happens when fighters are brought up, like they are today!

The only “delusion” is that from those very, very few of you who actually think you know something, but which is so plainly obvious to everyone else, and I do mean everyone else, that you have absolutely no clue. I can really understand why America is falling way behind in education compared to the rest of the world. Hell, some people have quit reading and just started assuming, I guess because it takes no effort to just assume something. I bet you both believe that people can actually tell the future to?

With a little reading you could actually learn something instead of staying in the dark on the topic and always looking just...well just plain dumb! It’s no secret to anyone that you two know very, very little about the time, one of you already said that “The Bare Knuckle Breed” was the extent of your research on the era and I’m sorry, but you both have a long, long way to go before either of you should try to comment on boxing from this era. What’s sad is that you never learn a single thing from the constant errors and mistakes that you make day after day; you just go from one ridiculous comment straight into another without missing a step! With some effort and some reading you could actually learn something instead of staying in the dark on the topic and looking just...well just plain dumb!

Oh, for the record...I didn't say that Sullivan was stronger that Valuev, pay better attention, besides a bench press doesn't mean shit when it comes to punching power. I've seen guys that could bench 500 pounds who would be lucky to crack an egg with a punch! I've also seen big, strong guys get taken to school on a mat by people barely more than half the big guys size! Nothing of that nature matters one bit when it comes to fighting, especially boxing!

I can't believe the lack of knowledge of some of these guys, I've actually had someone tell me on another thread that Benny Leonard couldn't punch!!!.... :x :x :x

Decagon wrote:Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Sullivan, at 190 pounds, is definitely stronger than the 320-pound Valuev? How much did he bench press?

Boxing isn't bench pressing!... as it happens Sullivan was an all round athlete who was extremely strong, he would have run rings around Valuev!...

Barry, I really hope you weren't referencing me in your post. I'm well aware of the greatness of baseball players like Walter Johnson, Cristy Mathewson and Grover "Pete" Alexander and when I made a reference to old time baseball players not being able to compete with modern players, I was not talking about that era, but rather the era before that, when the rules were totally different.

As far as John Sullivan and Nicolay Valuev goes, I really believe that most modern heavyweights, Valuev included, could beat Sullivan using modern rules aka 12 rounds, 3 judges, etc. by a decision. That said, if Sullivan were to fight modern heavyweights using his rules (which much of the time was actually london prize ring rules with gloves, rather than marquis of queensbury), then I think he would beat the vast majority of them.

This is why I hate comparing era's that are so clearly different. Because even though Sullivan is CLEARLY the greater fighter than Valuev, and the most important fighter of all-time, if i was forced to pick one fighter to win using modern rules, i would choose Valuev.

If Sullivan was the greater fighter as you admit then he would beat Valuev what ever the rules. Valuev would be too slow and too big a target.... it would in reality be a mismatch....
This is why I hate comparing era's that are so clearly different. Because even though Sullivan is CLEARLY the greater fighter than Valuev, and the most important fighter of all-time, if i was forced to pick one fighter to win using modern rules, i would choose Valuev.[/quote]

theone wrote:

Valuev would beat Sullivan if they fought. However, why does that matter? Charley Radbourn and Jim Galvin couldn't pitch effectively against modern baseball players. Cap Anson couldn't have hit effectively against modern baseball pitchers. Comparing a fighter from over a century ago to a fighter today is just stupid and a waste of time. Of course a fighter today could beat a fighter from 100 + years ago. That's just common sense.

Common sense aint so common on this site, iceman. Its funny to me how people can argue in favor of a fighters a century ago could compete with more modern fighters. Dempsey beating Valuev I can see, Louis most definitly, but Sullivan? Redicules. Its seems boxing is the only sport where this dellusion exists.

I'm not sure you read my whole post theone. I'm actually saying that it's a waste of time for decagon to make a thread comparing two fighters from different centuries in the first place.

What I was trying to convey was that even though John L. Sullivan is by far the greater of the two, in terms of talent compared to the rest of the era and overall importance to the sport, the sport it so completely different today than in Sullivan's era (Sullivan was essentially using a mix of London Prize Ring and Marquis of Queensbury rules) that if the two were to fight using modern rules, I would favor Valuev. And no one should have to say that Valuev would beat Sullivan, because Valuev is basically a laughing stock of the sport, which has become a laughing stock itself, whereas Sullivan is the one figure who made the sport what it became.

Which is why making a comparison like this in the first place is a complete waste of time.

silkov wrote:If Sullivan was the greater fighter as you admit then he would beat Valuev what ever the rules. Valuev would be too slow and too big a target.... it would in reality be a mismatch....
This is why I hate comparing era's that are so clearly different. Because even though Sullivan is CLEARLY the greater fighter than Valuev, and the most important fighter of all-time, if i was forced to pick one fighter to win using modern rules, i would choose Valuev.

[/quote]

I don't know Silkov. I mean, Valuev is one of the slowest people ever , but after reading John L. Sullivan and his America, I'm not convinced Sullivan ever really got hit when he was in his prime. He would bull rush the fighter and knock him down usually within the first 20 seconds, then continue to circle him and knock him down until the fight was over. I'm not sure how Sullivan would react to a solid jab, which, say what you will about Valuev, the big russian does have.

Once again, I'm comparing two fighters who, in reality should never have their names in the same sentence as one another.

So, I'll just end all of my talk on this topic with this.

John L. Sullivan is probably the most important fighter in the history of boxing. If this thread was started as a way to make Sullivan look bad, then it clearly hasn't worked. If it wasn't for Sullivan, then it may have been well into the 1900s before the sport was even accepted by the public. So, to those who think that guys like barry and silkov make out sullivan to be a more important figure than he actually is...well...you're wrong.