Jeffries v Sullivan A Cursory Appraisal

[Ivich]

I have allot to say about this provocative thread, and I will weigh in when I have a moment.
As a prelude, I respect and enjoy both Dr. Z and Ivich. Efforts to disparage Sullivan I do not abide however. Anything whatsoever that Richard Kyle Fox had to say about Sullivan should not be the basis of anything meaningful. (For cryin' out loud).


Year of Birth and career span of those mentioned, and select number of those not:

Paddy Ryan b. 1851. 1878-1889
(Original) George Godfrey b. 1853 1879-1896
John L. Sullivan. B. 1858. 1877-1892

Jake Kilrain b. 1859 1879-1899
Mike Conley b. 1860. 1883-1894
Charlie Mitchell b. 1861. 1878-1894
Peter Jackson b. 1861. 1882-1899
Joe Goddard b. 1861. 1889-1902
Frank Slavin b. 1862 1882-1907
Mick Dooley b. 1862. 1883-1901
John Clow b. 1862. 1881-1890
Patsy Cardiff b. 1863. 1881-1892
Bob Fitzsimmmons b. 1863. 1881-1916
Joe McAuliffe b. 1864. 1883-1897
Denver Ed Smith b. 1865. 1883-1908
James J. Corbett b. 1866. 1884-1903
Frank Childs b. 1867. 1888-1911
Peter Maher b. 1869. 1888-1911


At a blush, it really seems to me that.....
A. There were, in point of fact, PLENTY of excellent, tough, experienced fighers available in the busy final 3 decades of the 19th century for Sullivan to feast on, who say, James Toney or Rid**** Bowe wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley - and feast on them he DID. With Great housecleaning proliferation.
-And-
B. It looks like expectations are placed on the Great John L here to overstay his unparalleled dominance well into the next generation of heavyweights, which is careless research and nothing else. Not busting anyone's balls here. Just staying respectful of history and truth.
Should he have granted Peter Jackson a shot? Of course he should have!!!
But, in the prevailing public ethics of his time, that would have been equivalent to you sleeping with a 12 year old today.
...So he didn't.

Sullivan was getting a bit past it when Jackson peaked,should he have fought him yes,but we know why he didn't

John L took on;
McAffrey.
Ryan
Burke
Cardiff
Kilrain
Mitchell x2
Corbett
Greenfield
That's a pretty solid resume imo.

[The Old LefHook]

Joe Goddard had his 1 st pro fight in1889.
He did not even win the Australian title until June 1890

Apart from his abortive return to the ring against Corbett ,Sullivan had his last fight in1888

Joe Goddard 32 15 7 wikifollow Box-pro division heavy status inactive bouts 56 rounds 355 KOs 53.57% career 1889-1902 debut 1889-04-04 ID# 011540 birth name Joseph John Goddard sex male alias James Bradley

Fox never gave Sullivan a belt.after Sullivan snubbed Fox in a restaurant and declined his invitation to join him.Fox declared Jake Kilrain champion and had a belt made for him
Public subscription enabled a championship belt to be made for Sullivan in retaliation and Sullivan annonced that the $10.000 belt made Fox's onelook like a dog collar.

.In later life Sullivan prised out the diamonds from his belt and sold them individually for booze.
He pawned is several times
He then finally sold the remnants of the belt for $185.



Clown Dr Z patted himself on the back, bragging he knows all about Sullivan.


"Cool match up but that guy in the video doesn't know what he's talking about. I however do.
Last edited by Dr. Z; Today, 12:18 PM."


Well now he knows more than he did before I posted this!

Fox was the Editor of the National Police Gazette,the first recognized governing body of US boxing,but
even he could not anoint a worlds champion just because his pride had been hurt.I repeat Fox never gave Sullivan a championship belt, and consequently there was never one for him to take back from Sullivan.

So much for the IGNORANT Dr Zenophobic!

The History Blog » Blog Archive » The Charles Mitchell v. John L. Sullivan draw belt.

Say, you are not a know-it-all, are you?

[Ivich]

Say, you are not a know-it-all, are you?

There are many,many people who know more about boxing than me.

And plenty who know more about Sullivan and Jeffries.

You may well be one of them, I havent read any posts by you on them so I don't know.

.My position is Dr Z is not one of that many.and I've been reading his content for over a decade now.

I didnt state on here that I knew all about Sullivan HE did.!

I didnt state Fox took his championship belt off of Sullivan He did!

Fox never gave Sullivan any such belt and therefore had no belt to take from him!

I've provided the circumstances around Sullivan, getting his championship belt.
to counter his misinformation.

I didn't state Sullivan ducked Goddard. He did!

Goddard had his debut pro fight the year1888 Sullivan went into nearly 4 years of inactivity/.semi retirement.

All I've done is exposed the ignorance ,and misinformation in his post.

If that offends you then that's tough ****.

Let me be clear,I am not an expert on boxing, neither do I pretend to be one.

I am just a fan,but a fan who tries to have the facts to hand before making statements.

There may be times when I get things wrong ,but they are mistakes that I have made in good faith.

Any time you catch me out posting misinformation you are very welcome to bring it to my attention and,if you are right I will gladly say so.

You have still got a cob on against because I asked you why you won't call Muhammad Ali by his adopted name ?

Yet are happy to do so for all the many other fighters who adopted ring names.

Just as long as they are not ****** names.

If you want to continue your little agenda of dislike against me,feel free to do so.

For my part I have no animosity towards you.

[Dr. Z]

Year of Birth and career span of those mentioned, and select number of those not:
(Original) George Godfrey b. 1853 1879-1896
John L. Sullivan. B. 1858. 1877-1892

Jake Kilrain b. 1859 1879-1899
Mike Conley b. 1860. 1883-1894
Charlie Mitchell b. 1861. 1878-1894
Peter Jackson b. 1861. 1882-1899
Joe Goddard b. 1861. 1889-1902
Frank Slavin b. 1862 1882-1907
Mick Dooley b. 1862. 1883-1901
John Clow b. 1862. 1881-1890
Patsy Cardiff b. 1863. 1881-1892
Bob Fitzsimmmons b. 1863. 1881-1916
Joe McAuliffe b. 1864. 1883-1897
Denver Ed Smith b. 1865. 1883-1908
James J. Corbett b. 1866. 1884-1903
Frank Childs b. 1867. 1888-1911
Peter Maher b. 1869. 1888-1911


At a blush, it really seems to me that.....
A. There were, in point of fact, PLENTY of excellent, tough, experienced fighers available in the busy final 3 decades of the 19th century for Sullivan to feast on, who say, James Toney or Rid**** Bowe wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley - and feast on them he DID. With Great housecleaning proliferation.
-And-
B. It looks like expectations are placed on the Great John L here to overstay his unparalleled dominance well into the next generation of heavyweights, which is careless research and nothing else. Not busting anyone's balls here. Just staying respectful of history and truth.
Should he have granted Peter Jackson a shot? Of course he should have!!!
But, in the prevailing public ethics of his time, that would have been equivalent to you sleeping with a 12 year old today.
...So he didn't.

A decades worth of talent and Jackson, Goddard, Savin, Fitzsimmons rate better than anyone Sullivan beat. Just ask a historian who knows there stuff. There are other names to add to the list like the undefeated Minnesota slugger Pat Killen Sullivan should fought and fought Cardiff in guess where? You guess it, Killen's back yard. Killen highly regarded, has an early win over Cardiff and most newspaper would say was undefeated until 1889. Sullivan should have fought him in 1886, 1887 or 1888.

Washington Roller Rink, Minneapolis	D-PTS	6/6		bout score wiki
ref: Pat Sullivan Sullivan broke his left arm early in the 1st round. Gate: $8, 000 Attendance: 10, 000 (Minneapolis Journal 1-19-1887) According to the St Paul Daily Globe, Cardiff did most of the fighting and should have received the decision.

A resume of substance was there for Sullivan to take.

[Ivich]

[QUOTE=Dr. Z;n31606969]

A decades worth of talent and Jackson, Goddard, Savin, Fitzsimmons rate better than anyone Sullivan beat. Just ask a historian who knows there stuff. There are other names to add to the list like the undefeated Minnesota slugger Pat Killee Sullivan should fought and fought Cardiff in guess where? You guess it, Killen's back yard. Killen highly regarded, has an early win over Cardiff and most newspaper would say was undefeated until 1889. Sullivan should have fought him in 1886, 1887 or 1888.

Washington Roller Rink, Minneapolis	D-PTS	6/6		bout score wiki
ref: Pat Sullivan Sullivan broke his left arm early in the 1st round. Gate: $8, 000 Attendance: 10, 000 (Minneapolis Journal 1-19-1887) According to the St Paul Daily Globe, Cardiff did most of the fighting and should have received the decision.

A resume of substance was there for Sullivan to take. [TE]cstivity

[Willie Pep 229]

There are many,many people who know more about boxing than me.

And plenty who know more about Sullivan and Jeffries.

You may well be one of them, I havent read any posts by you on them so I don't know.

.My position is Dr Z is not one of that many.and I've been reading his content for over a decade now.

I didnt state on here that I knew all about Sullivan HE did.!

I didnt state Fox took his championship belt off of Sullivan He did!

Fox never gave Sullivan any such belt and therefore had no belt to take from him!

I've provided the circumstances around Sullivan, getting his championship belt.
to counter his misinformation.

I didn't state Sullivan ducked Goddard. He did!

Goddard had his debut pro fight the year1888 Sullivan went into nearly 4 years of inactivity/.semi retirement.

All I've done is exposed the ignorance ,and misinformation in his post.

If that offends you then that's tough ****.

Let me be clear,I am not an expert on boxing, neither do I pretend to be one.

I am just a fan,but a fan who tries to have the facts to hand before making statements.

There may be times when I get things wrong ,but they are mistakes that I have made in good faith.

Any time you catch me out posting misinformation you are very welcome to bring it to my attention and,if you are right I will gladly say so.

You have still got a cob on against because I asked you why you won't call Muhammad Ali by his adopted name ?

Yet are happy to do so for all the many other fighters who adopted ring names.

Just as long as they are not ****** names.

If you want to continue your little agenda of dislike against me,feel free to do so.

For my part I have no animosity towards you.

You might know this.

Didn't Fox actually give a championship belt to Kilraine (sp) for the sole reason of getting under Sullivan's skin?

I believe, but not sure, that Fox tried to sign John L to a contract and when Sullivan refused he started trying to goat Sullivan into a fight with Kilraine?

Not sure.

A second digression if you will allow me.

John L, at first, tried to force Kilraine into a glove fight and when he couldn't he started to act as if Kilraine was persona non grata.

But eventually Sullivan was forced to cave into a LPR bare knuckle fight that he really didn't want because of the newspapers/fans/Fox's belt, i.e. public announcements/propgsnda by Fox that Kilraine was the real champion?

These are questions lol - I'm hand wringing and fence sitting again because I am not sure if these statement are true.

You have any insight to Fox's motives?

[QueensburyRules]

You might know this.

Didn't Fox actually give a championship belt to Kilraine (sp) for the sole reason of getting under Sullivan's skin?

I believe, but not sure, that Fox tried to sign John L to a contract and when Sullivan refused he started trying to goat Sullivan into a fight with Kilraine?

Not sure.

A second digression if you will allow me.

John L, at first, tried to force Kilraine into a glove fight and when he couldn't he started to act as if Kilraine was persona non grata.

But eventually Sullivan was forced to cave into a LPR bare knuckle fight that he really didn't want because of the newspapers/fans/Fox's belt, i.e. public announcements/propgsnda by Fox that Kilraine was the real champion?

These are questions lol - I'm hand wringing and fence sitting again because I am not sure if these statement are true.

You have any insight to Fox's motives?

- - Ivich great grandpappy obviously.

[The Old LefHook]

There are many,many people who know more about boxing than me.

And plenty who know more about Sullivan and Jeffries.

You may well be one of them, I havent read any posts by you on them so I don't know.

.My position is Dr Z is not one of that many.and I've been reading his content for over a decade now.

I didnt state on here that I knew all about Sullivan HE did.!

I didnt state Fox took his championship belt off of Sullivan He did!

Fox never gave Sullivan any such belt and therefore had no belt to take from him!

I've provided the circumstances around Sullivan, getting his championship belt.
to counter his misinformation.

I didn't state Sullivan ducked Goddard. He did!

Goddard had his debut pro fight the year1888 Sullivan went into nearly 4 years of inactivity/.semi retirement.

All I've done is exposed the ignorance ,and misinformation in his post.

If that offends you then that's tough ****.

Let me be clear,I am not an expert on boxing, neither do I pretend to be one.

I am just a fan,but a fan who tries to have the facts to hand before making statements.

There may be times when I get things wrong ,but they are mistakes that I have made in good faith.

Any time you catch me out posting misinformation you are very welcome to bring it to my attention and,if you are right I will gladly say so.

You have still got a cob on against because I asked you why you won't call Muhammad Ali by his adopted name ?

Yet are happy to do so for all the many other fighters who adopted ring names.

Just as long as they are not ****** names.

If you want to continue your little agenda of dislike against me,feel free to do so.

For my part I have no animosity towards you.

No, I am not one of them ahead of you in boxing knowledge, if there are any on here. You have a lot of detailed minutia that stumps most of them. It is not an "agenda of dislike," that you perceive. What you really need is some instruction in how to teach. Don't lambaste them, teach them gently. Once you bawl your students out every time they are wrong, you will soon have no students. This is something I relearned from watching you as my reverse barometer. You have the knowledge, just not how to disseminate it in such a way that makes allies.

I am no angel. I did plenty of chewing and still do, I imagine. It gets toned down, though, when you see others using the same behavior. You have plenty to contribute. But right now you are attending a seminar by a semi-converted mangler who wants to help you in his own crude way.

* * * * *

So you imagine the Clay thing has upset me? Not at all, I assure you. To tell the truth, I couldn't even remember who had asked. My poor memory (and lack of concern) figured it was Travis, since he likes fresh reasons to call me scumbag. I don't answer anyone goading and daring me to answer their framed questions. I planned on answering eventually, when I was no longer under silly pressure to do so. Now, I don't know if you actually have enemies on here, or not. I know I do though. Enemies are probably the most fun I have around here. There was more potential over at the lounge to engage halfwits, so I started spending most of my time over there.

I think you will get the hang of teaching yet!

[The Old LefHook]

I must have inveterately undervalued Sullivan. Always I figured he was just a crude progenitor with a minimum of skill and an abundance of muscle and tough. Even seeing the matchup on the board surprised me. Imagined constraints is a frequent culprit to solution.

Did he train hard? How can you fight bouts so lengthy, or even sign for them, if you don't train much? He probably trained better than his reputation. Not many boxers have traps so developed, whether they train hard or not.

Obviously, I do not have an opinion that should matter on this match.

[Dr. Z]

I must have inveterately undervalued Sullivan. Always I figured he was just a crude progenitor with a minimum of skill and an abundance of muscle and tough. Even seeing the matchup on the board surprised me. Imagined constraints is a frequent culprit to solution.

Did he train hard? How can you fight bouts so lengthy, or even sign for them, if you don't train much? He probably trained better than his reputation. Not many boxers have traps so developed, whether they train hard or not.

Obviously, I do not have an opinion that should matter on this match.

Goddard was avoided by Sullivan. Written and openly talked about a match with Sullivan in newspaper men and known boxing scribes before he lost to Corbett in lost in September 1892. They could have meet for sure. Fact is they did not. Not that Sullivan openly ducked him. That was Peter Jackson who Goddard fight and drew in 1890

Don't let Ivich fool you, I have been handing the old man his rear for years correcting him so many times, I've lost count.

Judging by the pictures left to view, no he did Sullivan did not train very hard. He was often over weight and fat for fights. Read some or just ask. As for the match up Sullivan said Jeffries would have put it to him. It would have been a KO for Jeffries had the meet in their primes. There was talk about a match between the two, and they did spar. Thankfully it did not happen.