John L. Sullivan [Archive]

apollack

09-13-2006, 01:37 PM

New book should be out in week or so:

John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion.

The direct link is

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?isbn=0-7864-2558-X

The preface is also available for viewing:

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/contents-2.php?isbn=0-7864-2558-X

Advance orders are available.

I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone has about the book.

Basically, it focuses on the boxing much more than any other Sullivan book, not his personal life, etc. I used local next day newspaper reports so that you can experience it the way readers did at the time. Any question you have about one of his fights - this is the book you are going to reference.

Phantasm

09-13-2006, 01:45 PM

Yogi

09-13-2006, 02:27 PM

The very, very best of luck with this book, Adam, and I know that I most assuredly will be adding it to my collection...especially if it's largely a book that focuses more on the boxing side of things.

La_Vibora

09-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Cool, should be an interesting read. I would love to hear more details about his fights with Patsy Cardiff, Duncan McDonald Paddy Ryan(both of them), Dominick McCaffrey, and the 6'6 300lbs Jack Burns. Good luck!

Abe Attell

09-13-2006, 05:07 PM

Does it discuss how he avoided "Black" fighters?

apollack

09-13-2006, 05:39 PM

To answer all of your questions:

1. You may purchase it through any of the multiple online dealers. It is probably easiest to purchase through the publisher directly. Their link to do that is above in my original post.

2. The book most definitely focuses on the BOXING, not all the other stuff like family, wives, etc. – I could care less about that. I do what no other has done, which is delve into the boxing – talking about the opponents and their careers, what the local papers said about the fights, what they said about Sullivan and his skills and ability. That type of information. Not speculation, but what the newspapers at the time said, not something based on hearsay or legend written 20 years later – which is why my book will be more accurate. Also, I give multiple perspectives on a number of fights, because even local papers often gave different views on fights, just like they do today. Who’s right? I’ll let you decide.

3. For the Cardiff fight, I use the next day local Minneapolis Tribune’s account, as well as the account from the local St. Paul and Minneapolis Pioneer Press. In addition, I sprinkle in non-local sources like the National Police Gazette, and some later quotes from the fighters years later.

My discussion of Sullivan’s bouts with Duncan McDonald is unprecedented, because no one has really bothered to discuss them. Most secondary sources say they fought once to a draw and provide no details. They are WRONG! They actually boxed multiple times and it wasn't what some think….but I won’t spoil it.

Actually, Sullivan boxed Ryan in serious bouts three times, and I am very thorough in my discussions of those bouts, providing multiple local accounts for all three. I actually devote an entire chapter to their first fight.

I also devote an entire chapter to the McCaffrey fight, and will reveal more than you ever thought possible, again using multiple local newspapers (Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Cincinnati Evening Post), as well as non local sources. I discuss why there has been so much confusion all these years about that fight. In an earlier chapter, I discuss a sparring exhibition that Sullivan had with McCaffrey the year before they fought.

Jack Burns might not have been quite as big has history has reported. Might be one of those situations where he got bigger and bigger over the years, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I use no less than four local Chicago sources to discuss that bout.

4. Yes, I absolutely extensively discuss the color line. In fact, one of my chapters is called, “The Color Line.” Sullivan’s drawing of the color line is thoroughly analyzed using the newspapers of the time. I even discuss Peter Jackson’s career more extensively than anyone ever has in any Sullivan book, providing the details of Peter’s fights, what they said about his skills and abilities, and the discussions about the impediments to his securing a title shot. You will learn a lot about Jackson’s career. Because Jackson learned to box in Australia, I even provide the Australian perspective on the color line, using and citing Australian primary sources such as the Sydney Referee and the Australian Sportsman.

Basically, I guarantee you all will learn more about Sullivan’s career than you ever knew before. That applies even to seasoned historians.

jason100x

09-13-2006, 11:36 PM

I am currently reading the Michael Isenberg bio of John L Sullivan. It was recommended to me by someone in this forum a few weeks back and the book is a very good informative read but it does spend a lot of time talking about his impact on the culture of the time and his private life (friendships, family and relationships). There's nothing wrong with that.

Herb Boyd's recent biography of Sugar Ray Robinson was a good read which talked much about his life and I learned a lot about Robinson that I didn't know before but it didn't have much detail at all about the fights, it skimmed many of them over or gave a sentence or two to them. The Isenberg biography is the same way. It talks about the fights, some even with a bit of detail, but with boxing bios I like to feel like I am at the fights. For example, Russell Sullivan's Rocky Marciano:The Rock Of His Times was a perfect blend of his life and detail on his fights. I liked how the descriptions made the fights come alive. Same with the Jack Dempsey biography A Boxer Of Pure Flame.

Those are examples of how to do it right, how to make a valuable boxing bio, one you can read again and again and refer to. From the descriptions here, it sounds like the Adam Pollack book is what I am looking for in regards to Sullivan. I am going to get it soon and I'm confident it will be an excellent addition to my collection, a collection that is already spilling off the shelf.

Dempsey 1919

09-14-2006, 03:54 PM

apollack

09-15-2006, 01:00 AM

Sir, I think you will find my Sullivan book interesting and informative. It is important because it explains how boxing's first star was born, so to speak. It explains how boxing was really put on the map as a mainstream sport. Sullivan is a very powerful figure whose importance transcends time and race. Now, was he a bigot? Yes. But so were a ton of other athletes and others who were of big importance in sport and in other areas of life at that time. That doesn't mean their lives aren't interesting or that you can't learn something from studying them.

For what it is worth, I extensively discuss the color line and place it in context. I was surprised to find that there were strong arguments on both sides of the issue, but that actually boxing was THE ONE SPORT where arguments for fair play and equal opportunity were lodged by a large segment of the media and sporting public, pretty significant for the 1880s, only two decades removed from the Civil War. Keep in mind, racial separatism was the order of the day in almost every area of life, so Sullivan wasn't an anomaly, but rather a reflection of his times' social mores. Still, surprisingly, he did endure a lot of criticism for drawing the color line. I extensively report on that criticism. I think you'll find it fascinating. As a boxing fan, it makes me feel good to know that the sport I love, which has been perceived as depraved by its detractors, was also the one sport in America where arguments for fair play and meritocracy without regard to race were lodged.

I extensively discuss Peter Jackson's career, more so than anyone else has ever done. I discuss his fights, his skills, and the racial impediments he encounterd.

One thing that comes to light in the book is that the color line is really not as significant in the analysis of Sullivan's career as many might think, for many reasons. First, no black fighter particularly stood out during Sullivan's best years. Second, George Godfrey, the one top American black who stood out, was defeated by Jake Kilrain, who Sullivan fought. Third, Peter Jackson was not a significant contender until the late 1880s. By that time, the Sullivan-Kilrain fight was THE biggest fight to be made in boxing. After Sullivan defeated Kilrain in 1889, he retired, not fighting anyone, white or black, so even though he drew the color line, it didn't matter - he wasn't fighting period. He might as well have drawn the color line against whites. :) When he finally did fight in 1892, he took on Jim Corbett, who had fought Jackson to a 61 round draw, so Corbett was no less worthy to challenge for the crown at that point than was Jackson.

Oh, and as for your statement that Sullivan was slow, I assure you that you are sorely mistaken. You are thinking of a past his prime Sullivan. In his prime, Sullivan wasn't simply fast, he was extremely fast. Most of the newspapers said that he was the fastest big man they had ever seen, that what made him special was the combination of strength and speed that he had with both hands and feet, such that no man's science could deal with his talent.

apollack

09-15-2006, 11:02 PM

Book is now available to be shipped.

hayZ

09-17-2006, 06:13 AM

them newspapers at the time must have been really biased because he was white, peter jackson would have murdered him.

sullivan was a disgrace racist scum

Yogi

09-17-2006, 07:11 AM

them newspapers at the time must have been really biased because he was white

I don't know what you've discovered in your research, my friend, but during my own research of the early MoQ era I have found that there was very little, if any, racial bias coming through from the boxing writers of that time...

You might want to go back and review what the newspapers of the time were saying about the great black fighters of that era, such as Jackson, George Dixon, Barbados Joe, Joe Gans, etc...I think you will find that all of those fighters were written about in the HIGHEST terms possible. In fact, I know you will.

Southpaw Stinger

09-17-2006, 07:56 AM

I think this is the only last surviving footage of John L.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIfcYJpUig0&mode=related&search=

Yaman

09-17-2006, 12:37 PM

Wow, where do they bread these kids.

John L. Sullivan was a racist scum? Piece of trash?

K-DOGG

09-17-2006, 01:15 PM

Dempsey 1919

09-18-2006, 11:06 AM

Wow, where do they bread these kids.

John L. Sullivan was a racist scum? Piece of trash?

He was. :rolleyes:

K-DOGG

09-18-2006, 12:22 PM

He was. :rolleyes:

Butterfly, he was a product of the times....that doesn't mean he was worthless....it means he was ignorant.

Dempsey 1919

09-18-2006, 02:27 PM

Butterfly, he was a product of the times....that doesn't mean he was worthless....it means he was ignorant.

Ok, fine. He was ignorant. But I still can't stand him, nor can I stand, corbett, fitzsimmons, or jeffries, that's why I'm glad Johnson beat him to a pulp, lol!

hemichromis

09-18-2006, 03:43 PM

racism was rife in those days i dont know if you can blame one man for conforming.

Dempsey 1919

09-18-2006, 04:02 PM

racism was rife in those days i dont know if you can blame one man for conforming.

If he had a brain, he would know that it's still wrong.

K-DOGG

09-18-2006, 04:39 PM

If he had a brain, he would know that it's still wrong.

Not fair, Butterfly. Blacks were freed from slavery a mere 15 years before John L. won the world title, so when he was a kid, Blacks were property in the south. You can't undo a lifetime of brainwashing. The brain is a computer which is fed information over time and computes and comes to conclusion through reason....and not all "computers" are equal. John L. had his opinions based on all of the input he'd collected over his lifetime from a variety of tainted and ignorant sources....and it was still socially accepted to look down on blacks, or negroes at that time.

You can not expect John L. to be above the norm simply because we know now that it is wrong. There are children being raised racist today on pupose; and they've got 100 times the resources to the contrary that John L. had. It was only a mere 40 years ago that Marin Luther King Jr. began to awaken America's awareness.....and that was 80 years after Sullivan was champ.

You are being unfair in your judgement and presumptions.

Kid Achilles

09-18-2006, 05:18 PM

Regardless of what you think of him as a human being, boxing owes more to him than just about any other fighter in history. From what I've heard, he was just about the first fighter to actually make a good living on fighting alone. Up until then, even the champions and top contenders at the time needed steady work on the side to be well of financially. Sullivan was the first boxer, perhaps even the first athlete, to appeal to a big cross section of the US, from the working class on up. He single handedly took boxing, a fringe sport for the poor, not far removed from how we view say dog or **** fighting today, and put it right up there with baseball as one of the most popular sports in the country.

It takes a very, very unique person and athlete to accomplish something like that.

Personally, I'm exciting about reading this book, as there's a lot about Sullivan I don't know, but I've always had a ton of respect for the guy. Without John L, boxing wouldn't be the same sport it is today.

Dempsey 1919

09-18-2006, 05:52 PM

jason100x

09-18-2006, 06:10 PM

According to the Isenberg biography of Sullivan, Sullivan was the first American "nonentrepreneur from the popular culture to earn over a million dollars in his lifetime". His 1883-1884 Grand Tour alone earned him estimates between 50,000 and 195,000 dollars, a considerable sum for that period and he earned estimates between 10,000 and 26,600 dollars just for the Jake Kilrain fight alone. Even if you go by the low end of those estimates, he was very popular in that day and age.

Kid Achilles

09-19-2006, 12:35 AM

Dempsey upped the popularity of the sport a great deal and brought in a lot of money, but not to the degree that Sullivan did. I mean Sullivan took it from illegal sport to mainstream popularity. Dempsey definitely made the sport even more popular, but it wasn't the big jump that Sullivan caused. By the time Dempsey came around, boxing was much more accepted and popular.

Abe Attell

09-19-2006, 09:59 AM

You can be a "Racist" and still choose to fight the opposition...so Sullivan didn't like "blacks", so what, that doesn't mean you don't fight them...think about it, why not fight the poor, hopeless, stupid, unmanly, black man... show your "White Power", what harm could he do to you, right ;)

They hated Jack Johnson because he shoved his black skin in their face, ****ed their white women, drove their cars fast down their streets, ****ed their women, smiled to the camera and the people like everything was just great, ****ed their women, earned a good amount of money, beat up their fighters, ****ed their women, dressed in the finest suits, ****ed their women, etc.

I don't blame John: he had to be ignorant...he must have not been educated because he obviously couldn't comprehend history or even his present day...he must have been so stupid that he didn't even realize that he, in the eyes of the English, was nothing more than a potato eating, drunken, Mick, who was nothing short of a toilet.

Dempsey 1919

09-19-2006, 10:43 AM

Dempsey 1919

09-19-2006, 10:43 AM

Haha, good post. Good k for you!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Abe Attell again.

apollack

09-19-2006, 11:05 PM

Dempsey 1919

09-20-2006, 12:22 AM

apollack

09-20-2006, 02:29 AM

If I prove it, will you buy my book?

Anyway, most serious history scholars are well aware of the fact that simply believing slavery was wrong did not mean that those same persons believed in equality of rights. That included President Lincoln. I'll prove it nevertheless.

This is a quote from my Sullivan book, taken from the Times Democrat, July 22, 1889:

"There is nothing extraordinary about this particular manifestation of the color prejudice. There are other exhibitions of the same feeling, in the North as well as in the South, which are even more remarkable….

While such things are true at the North, it is arrant hypocrisy for Northerners to prate about the “insane prejudice” of Southerners against the negro. The truth is that this color prejudice is entertained by most white people – by a great many who concede that it seems unreasonable, and yet who confess that they cannot get over it….

We must remember that it is only about thirty years since Abraham Lincoln, in his famous joint debate with Douglas, in answering on the 18th of September, 1858, the question whether he was “really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people,” replied:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

So, like I said, there is a lot to be learned from my Sullivan book. Have I convinced you?

Here is a quote from the Daily Alta California, January 4, 1889, quoting a senator (to be used in my Corbett book):

"Lincoln believed that the only solution of the problem of the negroes’ destiny would be found in their deportation and colonization in Hayti and Liberia, and it is opportunely recalled that General Grant thought of colonizing them in San Domingo. …

But we begin to realize now that the colored people love the whites so much that they are determined to stay with them. The Governments of Liberia, Hayti and San Domingo are all monumental failures. The colored man cannot get along by himself.

That is to say, the colored man, wherever he attempts to govern himself, is a failure. He can’t get along by himself. …

The white man can get along by himself. … A white minority, anywhere on earth, finally conquers a colored majority…

But we need not discuss the matter. It is getting discussion enough by the men who rightly believed that the negro did not deserve slavery, and who now confess that they were so right in that proposition that they made the mistake of omitting to see that he also did not deserve citizenship."

There's a lot to history you might learn from checking out my book.

Abe Attell

09-20-2006, 02:29 AM

Do you think we should stop studying George Washington in school because he owned slaves? How about Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln believed that although slavery was wrong, that blacks should not have the same rights as whites. Is a book on him worth while?

I don't want anybody to take this the wrong way, but it seems that "Slavery" is a necessity for any NEW NATION: you must build fast to protect from foreign invasion of your fertile land.

A bunch of regular farmers can't do it alone...you can't have the brains of the operations spending all their time on the farm, they must be able to "govern."

Washington and the others had to know this, since unlike ignorant John L., George read books, preferably history of Empire, like Rome...If you don't know, Rome used the same method of using slavery to build the Empire as quick as possible.

It evens out: without guys like Washington, we may not have a nation.

Abe Attell

09-20-2006, 02:33 AM

Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_Thomas_Jefferson's_views_on_slavery

Opposed but Accepted
Jefferson was morally opposed to slavery. He felt it was evil and wrong. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned it in no uncertain terms. As Governor of Virginia he proposed legislation to abolish it. Despite his moral opposition though, he owned a significant number of slaves. For financial and social reasons, and perhaps due to personal weakness as well, he was never able to free most of his own slaves. Even in his will he could only free one or two due to the fact that the rest were necessary to pay off his debts.

Other FAQ Farmers have offered these opinions
Yes, Jefferson did own hundreds of Human Beings. He also fathered children with at least one slave; these children also were slaves of his. Jefferson was also concerned about America's karma. He wrote about the vengance that God was sure to extract upon his race.

Thomas Jefferson not only owned slaves but fathered children into slavery. My view of the "founding fathers" is not a pleasant one. A country built on the pursuit of happiness from oppression while condoning that very oppression among a race of people is nothing to be proud of. Furthermore, not only was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite, he was an adulterer. I believe he was married while he was taking those late night trips to the slave quarters.

Thomas Jefferson certainly had many faults, but he was most assuredly not an adulterer. His relationship with the slave Sally Hemmings certainly has been proven without a doubt, and it also a fact that on his death bed he freed only Sally and members of her immediate family. Does that make him a "racist" or worse? No it does not. We err when we try to judge someone who lived in a time so far removed from our own, by using the standards of the present. Jefferson and his contemporaries were products of a differernt age. What was acceptable in their day is clearly not acceptable in ours. Accepted norms evolve through the passage of each generation. I consider Jefferson to be among the most flawed of the founders, but they were all merely human, and Jefferson, warts and all was, nonetheless, a truly great American. To quote a political adversary of Jefferson's, "I never expect to see perfect work from imperfect man." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 85, 1788

There are some great readings on Jefferson here about slavery
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040705/

kerrminator

09-20-2006, 04:31 AM

John L. Sullivan

John Sullivan was boxings first superstar.He dominated the heavyweight scene for 10 years, during the time when it emerged from the seedy world of bare-knuckle prizefights to become a mainstream sport under Marquis of Queensberry rules.

John Lawrence Sullivan was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 15th october 1858. His Irish father was small of stature but very handy with his fists. John L inherited those skills in abundance. He scrapped his way through the best Boston had to offer, then became the state champion when he beat Dan Dwyer, the recognised holder of that title. It wasn't long before this KO specialist from New England, nicknamed the "Boston Strong Boy", was the talk of fight fans everywhere. He raised his profile even more when hemet John Flood in 1881. Flood, who was known as the"Bulls Head Terror", was thought to be the man who could bring Sullivan's inexorable progress to a halt. The two met on a barge anchored in the Hudson river. The contest was conducted under London Prize Ring Rules, which also allowed wrestling holds. Such contests were of unlimited duration, each round continuing until one man went down. A floored fighter had 30 seconds to come to his feet and failure to do so meant defeat. The Sullivan-Flood fight lasted 16 minutes, during which time the"Bulls Head Terror" had been put down on eight occasions. Flood's cornerhad seen enough and threw in the towel.
After taking a few more scalps, Sullivan earned himself a crack at America's recognised champion, Paddy Ryan. Ryan, a New Yorker who hailed from Tipperary, had won the title from Joe Goss in may 1880. The championship lineage of the previous 30 years hadn't always been totally pure. Some of the title claims in that time had been questionable. Sullivan was about to change all that.

On Feb 7th 1882, he took the crown from Ryan, needing just 10 minutes to finish the job. Having put Ryan down a number of times already, Sullivan ended proceedings with a trip-hammer right, his greatest weapon. The title and the $5,000 purse, were his. A new boxing era was born. Sullivan proceeded to milk his newly aquired status for all it was worth. An extrovert and a braggart, he toured the country, throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who fancied his chances of going four rounds with the champion. Some 50 men tried their hand. Only one is said to have claimed the $1,000 prize on offer, and he was a rugged pro who used his experience and every trick in the book simply to survive the allotted time.
Those vanquished by Sullivan during his travelling circus days do not feature in the record books. While his victims doubtless included many no-hopers, Sullivan must have faced the roughest, toughest bar-room brawlers every town had to offer. He cant be accused of being a sleeping champion, not in the early stages of his reign, at least. John was soon the idol of the masses. His exciting, all action fighting style, together with his charismatic personality, endeared him to a population only too keen to embrace a new sporting hero. By 1887, Sullivan's popularity was at its height. Boxing was the number one sport, with Sullivan its undisputed champion and star attraction

Battle of the belts

To coincide with his latest national tour, some of Boston's prominent citizens and sports fans decided to honour their city's favourite son with a trophy:a jewel-encrusted gold belt. It was inscribed with the words:"Presented to the Champion of Champions, John L. Sullivan, by the citizens of the United States, July 4, 1887". This was not the only belt in circulation, however. Richard K. Fox, publisher of the Police Gazzete, had also commisioned a belt to be made. This was awarded to his own heavyweight protege, a man named Jake Kilrain. Kilrain was a veteran Prize Fighter, one of the best men of his era, and Fox had issued a challenge to Sullivan to fight his man. When John turned him down, Fox responded by declaring Kilrain the champion, complete with new "championship" belt. Understandably, there was considerable needle between the two camps. When Sullivan was awarded his belt, he praised its superior craftsmanship and beauty compared with Kilrain's, which he disparagingly described as "a dog collar".
The ill-feeling would rumble on for two more years before Sullivan and Kilrain could settle the issue inside the ring. First, there was an extended tour to Europe, where Sullivan had one man in particular in his sights: Englands Charley Mitchell. Sullivan and Mitchell had met before, at Madison Square Garden in May 1883. England's top fighter had crossed the atlantic, making it known that he had come with the express purpose of knocking Sullivan out. He couldn't back up his words on that occasion, however. Mitchell had been knocked out of the ring in the second round, and floored again in the third, at which point the police intervened to prevent the challenger from taking any more punishment.
The bad blood between the two men was still in evidence five years later, when they met for a second time. The rematch took place near Chantilly, France, on the estate of Baron Rothschild. Their first encounter had been a glove fight ; this time it was a bare knuckle contest.

Underhand Tactics

Mitchell did much better on this occasion, taking Sullivan 39 rounds before the contest was declared a draw. Both men claimed to have had the better of things, with Sullivan probably having the stronger claim. Mitchell had certainly avoided the champions heaviest punches, but his survival also involved underhand tactics. He had repeatedly gone to ground without being hit, frustrating Sullivan's efforts to finish him off.
Back in the USA, Sullivan finally agreed to a showdown with his other big rival, Jake Kilrain. It took place in Missisippi, on a baking hot day in July 1889. It was a bare knuckle-contest fought under the London Prize Ring Rules. It would be the last heavyweight championship fight conducted under such rules, and the two men made it a contest to remember. Two hours and 16 minutes after the pratogonists squared up to each other, Kilrain's corner threw in the towel(or his seconds threw in the sponge as it was called those day). Their man was out on his feet at the end of the 75 rounds that the fight had lasted. The battle of the two belts had been decided in the champions favour, but it had been a bruising attritional battle. It would be three years before Sullivan would put his title on the line again. In that time, the champion lived life to the full, and also set a precedent that many of his sucsessors would follow by taking to the stage. Apart from the boxing that was incorporated into his theatrical role, Sullivan fought only exhibition bouts during this three-year period. One of these matched him against James Corbett, the two men sparring for four rounds in full dress suits in May 1891. The following year, on sept 7th 1892, they met again, this time for real. Despite being a month short of his 34th birthday, unfit and grossley overweight, Sullivan went into the fight as hot favourite. But his 10-year, vice-like hold on the championship was about to be broken by a man who was younger, fitter and who elevated ringcraft to a completely new level.

apollack

09-25-2006, 08:02 PM

For those of you who receive this book, please post and keep posting regarding what you think of it. It would mean a lot to me if you would review it and spread the word about it. Thanks.

09-27-2006, 07:41 PM

jason100x

09-27-2006, 09:18 PM

jason100x - how are you liking the book(john l sullivan and his america)? one thing i thought was unique about it was the index which had a complete list of his fights as well as a listing of his career earnings. fascinating stuff. hope you are enjoy it.

apollack, is your book available on amazon?
I liked John L. Sulliivan and His America. Before reading it I knew next to nothing about Sullivan so I learned much about him. Like A. Pollack says in one of his posts, the book goes into more detail about the era, his life and the circumstances surrounding the fights rather than going into detail about the fights themselves. Not that it doesn't talk about them, but I would have liked more detail about them. In that regard it kind of reminded me of a more analytical Pound For Pound, the biography of Sugar Ray Robinson, a book that I also enjoyed but found myself wishing for better fight descriptions. The appendices in the Sullivan book were excellent, especially the one showing how much he made for each fight and on his various tours. Overall, I highly recommend it to anyone and I thank you for suggesting it to me.
Yes, Amazon does have the A. Pollack Sullivan biography available. The link is this: http://www.amazon.com/John-L-Sullivan-Heavyweight-Champion/dp/078642558X/sr=1-1/qid=1159402543/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4574584-3180752?ie=UTF8&s=books

I ordered a copy but they say they ship in one to three weeks. Since ordered a week plus ago, I still may have two weeks before it comes:purity: and I'm not very patient but when it comes I'll post my views.

09-27-2006, 09:36 PM

and I'm not very patient but when it comes I'll post my views.

thanx, i was just going to ask you if you would post a review.

glad you like my recommendation. between this book and the one i suggested, you will probably be the authority on sullivan on this board.

also you also could've just PM'ed me and i would've emailed you a chapter or two to read while you waited for it(john l and his america).

what other old, old school boxers interest you? i might have some books that i could recommend and/or send you some scans if you like. i have quite a bit on jack johnson - my favorite early 20th century boxer along with dempsey.

jason100x

09-27-2006, 10:18 PM

thanx, i was just going to ask you if you would post a review.

glad you like my recommendation. between this book and the one i suggested, you will probably be the authority on sullivan on this board.

also you also could've just PM'ed me and i would've emailed you a chapter or two to read while you waited for it(john l and his america).

what other old, old school boxers interest you? i might have some books that i could recommend and/or send you some scans if you like. i have quite a bit on jack johnson - my favorite early 20th century boxer along with dempsey.
I appreciate the offer of sending me the sample from John L and His America. The book came so fast, I think I waited about a day.

I read Unforgiveable Blackness on Jack Johnson and thought that was a very complete book. It was thorough enough that I didn't feel as if I needed more. My favorite boxer from that period and probably of all, is Dempsey and I read A Boxer Of Pure Flame and today I just ordered the Randy Roberts bio on him. I would actually be interested in knowing more about Jim Jeffries if you have some scans or recommendations of books to read. Even though he wasn't a boxer himself, the Dempsey bio and the Sullivan bio you recommended me made me interested in reading more about William Muldoon so if you have anything to recommend on him that would be great.

apollack

09-27-2006, 11:27 PM

I'd say if you want the book to come faster, order it via the McFarland website.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?isbn=0-7864-2558-X

Jason, I assure you that my book will give you everything that Isenberg's book is missing, and then some.

My appendix includes Sullivan's record, and it blows Isenberg's away. It makes his look like little crib notes.

I know I sound like a braggart, but like Ali once said, it isn't bragging if you can back it up. And I assure you, I do.

Oh and Jay, I really dig that poster photo you have attached to your name. I believe it is from Ichi the Killer, one of the most innovative, intense, and crazy films I've ever seen. That was one bad ass movie. Not for the weak of heart.

09-27-2006, 11:50 PM

i have unforgivable blackness as well - both book and video documentary. it certainly was a definitive book on jack. if you interested, on jack johnson i also have

"boxing day" detailing jack's win over tommy burns.
http://www.amazon.com/Boxing-Day-Fight-Changed-World/dp/0732264804

and

"jack johnson is a dandy" jacks own autobiography.
http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Johnson-dandy-autobiography/dp/B0006CZ7AU/sr=1-1/qid=1159410568/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0994858-3444835?ie=UTF8&s=books

both are interesting. "boxing day" goes into more detail on how jack had positioned himself for a title fight with burns and the aftermath than "unforgivable blackness."

and jack's autobiography is very, very interesting. strangely, i've read a few reviews that have stated there is no way to tell how much of what jack wrote is factual - mostly his early childhood. some details include jack's thoughts on keeping in shape, how he personally viewed many of his fights, and even a little something on dietary habits. it's the perfect book to go along with reading documentations of his life and boxing career.

i could send you some excerpts or something from it if you want to check these out. both have at least some info on jim. you may want to read the autobiography to read what jack was thinking about his fight with jim.

mostly though, i forgot how many books i have. i don't have all of them close-by. now, william muldoon, i don't have anything on him besides the book on john l. he does seem like an interesting person - at least being a boxing trainer and especially training john l if i remember correctly.

apollack

09-28-2006, 10:26 AM

Check out Tracy Callis' review of John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/JohnLSullivan-AdamPollack-Book-Review.htm

jason100x

09-28-2006, 10:27 AM

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll have to check them out. Right now I'm backed up so far with reading material (although I do intend to put everything aside when the Sullivan book arrives) that it might be awhile before I get to those books but I certainly wouldn't mind reading the Jack Johnson autobiography.
Muldoon seems like one of those fascinating characters worthy of a book, it's too bad there doesn't seem to be one. Maybe I'll have to write it at some point...

Adam, I look forward to your book coming, and like I said, I'm sure it will be a good read and a useful reference. If McFarland Publishing is putting it out and I have a number of books from them then it must be good.

LondonRingRules

10-01-2006, 12:22 PM

I don't blame John: he had to be ignorant...he must have not been educated because he obviously couldn't comprehend history or even his present day...
** Doing a bit of self reflection, eh? I'm hardly a Sullivan fan, but what you know about history and racism wouldn't fill up the heads of those pins you shove up your nose and lips and you know less about boxing.

Sullivan was far more advanced in his day then you are in your's and you certainly shouldn't be allowed to sully the memory of Peter Jackson by even mentioning him at all. Git thee back to your dumpster nursing home and forsake forums that expose your flaccid insipience.

LondonRingRules

10-01-2006, 12:34 PM

"jack johnson is a dandy" jacks own autobiography.
http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Johnson-dandy-autobiography/dp/B0006CZ7AU/sr=1-1/qid=1159410568/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0994858-3444835?ie=UTF8&s=books

** Johnson also wrote an addendum to his bio which he sold to Nat Fleischer upon Jack's release from prison. Nat never published it because he knew it to be complete fiction. Johnson went to his grave thinking he was still good enough to win the title back from Joe Louis, an prototype of Holyfield today.

Abe Attell

10-01-2006, 10:59 PM

** Doing a bit of self reflection, eh? I'm hardly a Sullivan fan, but what you know about history and racism wouldn't fill up the heads of those pins you shove up your nose and lips and you know less about boxing.

Sullivan was far more advanced in his day then you are in your's and you certainly shouldn't be allowed to sully the memory of Peter Jackson by even mentioning him at all. Git thee back to your dumpster nursing home and forsake forums that expose your flaccid insipience.

I am sorry, I don't speak "junkie"

King Koyle

10-02-2006, 01:25 PM

Not fair, Butterfly. Blacks were freed from slavery a mere 15 years before John L. won the world title, so when he was a kid, Blacks were property in the south. You can't undo a lifetime of brainwashing. The brain is a computer which is fed information over time and computes and comes to conclusion through reason....and not all "computers" are equal. John L. had his opinions based on all of the input he'd collected over his lifetime from a variety of tainted and ignorant sources....and it was still socially accepted to look down on blacks, or negroes at that time.

You can not expect John L. to be above the norm simply because we know now that it is wrong. There are children being raised racist today on pupose; and they've got 100 times the resources to the contrary that John L. had. It was only a mere 40 years ago that Marin Luther King Jr. began to awaken America's awareness.....and that was 80 years after Sullivan was champ.

You are being unfair in your judgement and presumptions.

Intelligent post as usual K-Dogg......

jason100x

10-05-2006, 03:01 PM

Today I received my copy of the Adam Pollack book on John L. Sullivan. I'll write a more detailed commentary on it after I read it but just flipping through it I can see that it's very thorough. Filled with plenty of photos, it goes through the major fights with round by round detail, described by contemporary newspaper reports. The appendix is VERY detailed, listing his professional fight record.
Amazon has the book but they were taking their time sending it out so I switched my order to Barnes And Noble and received it the next day.

Southpaw Stinger

10-05-2006, 03:05 PM

jason100x

10-08-2006, 09:22 PM

I finished the book about John L. Sullivan by Adam Pollack. I was very impressed by its detail on his fighting career and strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject. The Isenberg bio of Sullivan is more of an actual biography detailing events of Sullivan's life and the background of the time while the Pollack book isn't a biography exactly but strictly details his boxing career, so for a complete view of his life, it would be better to read both. But if you are looking for a book that strictly covers the boxing aspects, then this book will more than suffice.

The Pollack book into enormous detail on the important fights, except for a major omission of the Corbett fight. I would have liked to have read a detailed account of the Corbett fight, which is only described in a few sentences in this book. On the other hand the Jake Kilrain fight takes up about twenty-five pages of description. That was the most fascinating part of the book; reading a round by round description of the fight using several contemporary newspaper accounts. I like the format of describing the other major fights in a similar round by round manner. The book also goes into a considerable amount of detail into the background behind Peter Jackson, the black Australian contender who caused Sullivan much criticism particularly from the Australian press for not fighting him. That part was very interesting as I didn't know much about him. Also, there is background on most of the other contenders to Sullivan's title.

Overall, I consider John L. Sullivan a great addition to my library and see it as setting a new standard in boxing books.

apollack

10-09-2006, 12:52 AM

Jason, thank you for your excellent review. I have been anxiously awaiting it, and hope that your fellow readers know you well enough to trust your positive review.

I have two reasons for leaving out a detailed discussion of the Corbett fight. First, because I believe the fight to be meaningless, as Sullivan had done next to nothing in terms of serious boxing for over THREE years, was fat, drunk almost nightly, horribly trained, pretty much said he was retired during those years and certainly acted like it. But the REAL reason I did not discuss it is because I didn't want to tell the story twice. I am going to tell it in exhaustive detail in my Corbett biography, which will be up next. The bout really fits better into the story of Jim Corbett than it does with the story of John L. Sullivan. You will get all that you want of that story in part two of what I hope will become a series (assuming I can get a publisher - which will probably depend on how well the Sullivan book does).

Thanks so much. Please spread the word about my book wherever you can.

jason100x

10-10-2006, 01:39 PM

It was my pleasure commenting on the book. It was a very impressive achievement and the best of luck to you with it! I hope that it sells very well as I look forward to reading your Jim Corbett book and whatever other subjects you intend to tackle in your series. This book is a welcome addition to my already very crowded book collection and I'll do what I can to show it off and tell people so that maybe they'll pick up copies.

Another point. Earlier in this thread I mentioned William Muldoon and how he seems like a fascinating character with a long involvment in boxing since he bridged Sullivan's time with Dempsey's time. It would be great if you could apply your writing skills to a biography of him. I haven't seen anything written specifically on him and I would certainly buy a book on his life.

apollack

10-22-2006, 10:12 AM

Right now I'm trying to obtain a publisher for book 2 in the series, which will be on James J. Corbett.

There is a book on Muldoon. Haven't read it, but Clay Moyle, a collector I respect and admire very much, probably has a copy:

VAN EVERY, EDWARD "MULDOON, THE SOLID MAN OF SPORT" 1929 NEW YORK, FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY

Southpaw Stinger

10-22-2006, 10:15 AM

apollack

10-22-2006, 10:40 AM

Yup. But I'm doing it in order. Jeff will be after Fitz. All will be written like I did Sullivan - based on multiple local next day newspaper reports, even Fitzsimmons (I've obtain at great cost a number of local Australian newspapers from the time).

The Raging Bull

10-22-2006, 10:45 AM

apollack

10-22-2006, 10:43 PM

Book is available via most online dealers.

Just type search terms and you'll find it.

John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion, by Adam Pollack

The Raging Bull

10-23-2006, 07:52 AM

Book is available via most online dealers.

Just type search terms and you'll find it.

John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion, by Adam Pollack

Ok thankyou :boxing:

apollack

01-15-2007, 12:10 AM

Check out this new review of the Sullivan book:

Review of Adam Pollack's, John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion

11.01.07 - By Zachary Q. Daniels: Unlike most boxing biographies, Adam Pollack's John L. Sullivan: The Career of the First Gloved Heavyweight Champion is not a chronicle of his life and times, but rather an extensively documented history of his boxing career. Readers who are interested in stories of Sullivan's drinking habits and later conversion to evangelism will have to look elsewhere—but those interested in "The Boston Strongboy's" performance in the ring will find a wealth of information likely unobtainable outside of library microfilm machines. What Pollack has done is to reconstruct the details of Sullivan's career using almost exclusively primary sources that describe the various fights Sullivan participated in immediately after they occurred, rather than relying on secondary sources published decades later. This gives the book an historical authenticity that is usually absent from most boxing biographies.

He begins by describing the context of Sullivan's career by explaining the state of the sport in the 1870s when Sullivan began his career, providing insight into the rules under which Sullivan fought, in both bare-knuckle and gloved bouts.

Particularly interesting is the fact that Sullivan, from the start of his career fought with gloves, under the Marquis of Queensberry rules—as well as under the earlier bare-knuckle London Prize Ring rules.

In fact, it appears that the majority of his bouts, particularly if one includes the many "exhibitions" he fought—many of which appear to have been actual fights disguised under this label—were gloved contests. At this time, there was a distinction between prizefights, which were fought bare-knuckle under the London rules, and exhibitions, which were fought with gloves under the Queensberry rules. Sullivan, from the beginning, preferred the latter, and only periodically engaged in bare-knuckle fights. This is quite in contrast to the standard portrayal of him as largely a bare-knuckle fighter.

Pollack recounts the details of all of the various exhibitions and prize-fights in which Sullivan participated, and one of the things that becomes clear in this review is that the line between the two was often blurred, and intentionally so as to get around the fact that while prizefighting was illegal in most jurisdictions, "exhibitions of skill" were not. Thus, in some cases, gloved contests advertised as exhibitions were broken up by law enforcement officials when it became clear they were fighting "for real." This happened more than once throughout Sullivan's career.

Another thing that emerges from Pollack's detailed review of the primary sources for Sullivan's major fights is that there are often inconsistencies in the reports concerning what actually happened in each fight, when fights ended, what particular punches were landed when, and other details. Given that there is no film of Sullivan's fights for contemporary analysts to review, it is impossible to fully reconcile these varying accounts, but Pollack does an excellent job in attempting to do so. Thankfully, in most cases, the discrepancies are confined primarily to minor details. One case where the issue is not so minor concerns the length and reasons for termination of his fight with Dominick McCaffrey in 1885. Primary source accounts place the ending at either the 6th or 7th round, and some differ as to whether a decision was even rendered by the referee. Pollack does an excellent job of explaining all the confusion and offers his novel analysis and conclusions using both national and local newspapers.

The ambiguity of Sullivan's drawing of the color line is well—dealt with throughout the book. Pollack recounts an incident where Sullivan agreed to box black fighter George Godfrey in 1888, and reports that that he had been matched to box Godfrey back in 1880 or 1881, although this was apparently prevented by police. Sullivan's apparent vacillations on whether he was willing to meet top contender Peter Jackson are also recounted in detail, and some solid details on Jackson's career are provided from primary sources.

In fact, a unique feature of this book throughout is the attention it pays to providing details on Sullivan's opponents—who they were, who they fought, what their general status in the sport of boxing was at the time. This helps give the reader a clear idea of the significance of various fights, which ones were against solid contenders who were legitimate threats, and which fights were of lesser significance. This provision of "perspective" is often absent in standard works on boxers—if they cover their fights in any detail at all, it is often only the major ones, leaving the reader wondering what the rest of the fighter's career was like. Pollack spares no detail when recounting Sullivan’s boxing career during his prime years.

Some will object to the relatively sparse coverage Pollack gives to the Corbett fight in 1892, an omission he justifies on the grounds that it will be covered in his next book on Corbett's career. This is perhaps understandable from a researcher's perspective, but the relatively brief coverage of such a significant fight does leave the reader wishing for more detail, particularly given the wealth of information this book provides on other fights. On the other hand, it certainly does wet the appetite among dedicated boxing fans and historians for more, which is perhaps the intention.

Overall, then, this book is a superb—and, in many ways, unique—contribution to the boxing literature. It is not an easy book to read, given its attention to detail and quasi-academic style—but it is most definitely worth the effort for those boxing fans who really want to know the details of Sullivan's career through the eyes of those who actually saw him fight. As none of Sullivan's fights were filmed, this is as close as boxing fans of today can get to actually seeing him—which speaks volumes about the quality and detail of the research Pollack has undertaken.