Thread: John L. Sullivan (actual footage!)

If anyone wondered about what it looked like when the guy was fighting take a look at this vid.

[youtube=425,350]tIfcYJpUig0[/youtube]
That's Sullivan with the big handlebar moustache play sparring with Jim Corbett before the Jeffries-Johnson fight (so the poster on youtube says).

It's really amazing how far boxing has come since then. The position of the hands, the movement, the way punches are thrown.

Granted John L. was hella old by this time and damn near 300 pounds but I am guessing that's the way he would look when he was brawling.

Just thought this was interesting and wanted to share a bit of history with you guys, enjoy

That was a rare treat even if it isn't Sullivan in the footage. Thanks, man.


Yeah, the "double-uppercut" stance (as I like to call it) was a joke. The first man to turn his elbows out was poked fun at I'm sure--only for a moment.

The way they threw the punches were mighty strange looking too

That is Sullivan in the clip, I've seen that exact clip in a bunch of credibile documentary specials on boxing. I've seen a few different clips of him, but in all of them he was older and obviously faaaar from his fighting shape/weight.

Does anyone know who the first sucessful boxer to change the boxing style from that stance to a more modern one? You have to wonder too, can basic boxing fundementals be more evolved than they are right now. I dont think so but they probably didnt think so either back then.

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

Does anyone know who the first sucessful boxer to change the boxing style from that stance to a more modern one? You have to wonder too, can basic boxing fundementals be more evolved than they are right now. I dont think so but they probably didnt think so either back then.

Good thought, Boomer!

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

Does anyone know who the first sucessful boxer to change the boxing style from that stance to a more modern one? You have to wonder too, can basic boxing fundementals be more evolved than they are right now. I dont think so but they probably didnt think so either back then.

Interesting mate, who knows!

Thanks fellas, im gonna do some research and get back

Originally Posted by Lyle

If anyone wondered about what it looked like when the guy was fighting take a look at this vid.

[youtube=425,350]tIfcYJpUig0[/youtube]
That's Sullivan with the big handlebar moustache play sparring with Jim Corbett before the Jeffries-Johnson fight (so the poster on youtube says).

It's really amazing how far boxing has come since then. The position of the hands, the movement, the way punches are thrown.

Granted John L. was hella old by this time and damn near 300 pounds but I am guessing that's the way he would look when he was brawling.

Just thought this was interesting and wanted to share a bit of history with you guys, enjoy

He is a poster boy for the irish race.

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

Does anyone know who the first sucessful boxer to change the boxing style from that stance to a more modern one? You have to wonder too, can basic boxing fundementals be more evolved than they are right now. I dont think so but they probably didnt think so either back then.

Well in the Heavyweight division Gene Tunney was probably the 1st fighter to really resemble a modern day 'boxer' although obviously he didnt posses all the tools.

Its quite a thing when a boxer comes along and does something that most other boxers cant quite seem to emulate nor handle

That's right, Tunney beat 2 of the BADDEST brawlers in the world at the time....Jack Dempsey and of course Harry Greb

Here's some RARE footage of Greb too, sparring with Philadelphia Jack O'Brien

[youtube=425,350]HMA6Pd6tT3Q[/youtube]

LOL that old stance never fails to crack me up. You can tell they have a lot of boxing skill, jabbing to the body and whatnot, but judging by their stances and the way they move their arms you'd think they were two drunks fighting.

It's easy for us to automatically assume that anything modern is 'better' and more effective than anything that has gone on before, especially when it is as long ago as John L.

One of the real difficulties in comparing fighters from different eras is that the sport itself has changed so much to be almost unrecognisable from the old-timers day. (If you look at the history of writing: mud, stone tablets, papyrus, paper, typewriters to word processors (for example), you could take a word processor and put it next to a piece of mud and they bear absolutely no resemblance to each other ...... but actualy, progress has been a series of smaller incremental changes when you look at it objectively.

In Sullivan's day, they used hardly any bandage or padding on their hands, wrestling and rabbit punching was allowed, there were no standing eights, referees never stopped fights, there was no neutral corner, a round only ended whan someone fell over, there was no set scheduled distance for a fight, there were no formal decisions (the law forbade any fight to end in a decision as it was illegal, so many fights were NDs - it was the newspapers who printed their own journalists views on who won and the betting syndicates paid out according to the newspapers).

Compare that to now, and the sports are absolutely different. If it were not for the years and years of incremental change that have happened, they should not even be called the same thing.

Modern boxing, with it's set timings, rules of engagement and (crucially) the amount of hand protection have changed that. Most serious injuries are now caused by blunt trauma to the head - ie the well-protected hands of a fighter thumping into and moving an opponent's brain. In Sullivan's day, there was much more facial injury and damge as the hands were not as protected (thus the blows had a sharper impact - pressure being area x force - so fighters fought to protect their hands as well as inflict damage.

Sullivan's style looks a bit comical today, but I think if you took a modern boxer and asked him to fight under Sullivan's rules using his 'modern' stance and style, John L. would knock him into next week. The old style would maybe be more effective in a streetfight too (?) as modern bareknuckle fighters use the 'old' stance. If the new style was more effective they would be using it.

Equally, if you took Sullivan and asked him to fight in his style against a modern boxer under modern rules, John L. would be outworked, outpointed and probaly battered to defeat.

IMO, anyway.

Originally Posted by X

It's easy for us to automatically assume that anything modern is 'better' and more effective than anything that has gone on before, especially when it is as long ago as John L.

One of the real difficulties in comparing fighters from different eras is that the sport itself has changed so much to be almost unrecognisable from the old-timers day. (If you look at the history of writing: mud, stone tablets, papyrus, paper, typewriters to word processors (for example), you could take a word processor and put it next to a piece of mud and they bear absolutely no resemblance to each other ...... but actualy, progress has been a series of smaller incremental changes when you look at it objectively.

In Sullivan's day, they used hardly any bandage or padding on their hands, wrestling and rabbit punching was allowed, there were no standing eights, referees never stopped fights, there was no neutral corner, a round only ended whan someone fell over, there was no set scheduled distance for a fight, there were no formal decisions (the law forbade any fight to end in a decision as it was illegal, so many fights were NDs - it was the newspapers who printed their own journalists views on who won and the betting syndicates paid out according to the newspapers).

Compare that to now, and the sports are absolutely different. If it were not for the years and years of incremental change that have happened, they should not even be called the same thing.

Modern boxing, with it's set timings, rules of engagement and (crucially) the amount of hand protection have changed that. Most serious injuries are now caused by blunt trauma to the head - ie the well-protected hands of a fighter thumping into and moving an opponent's brain. In Sullivan's day, there was much more facial injury and damge as the hands were not as protected (thus the blows had a sharper impact - pressure being area x force - so fighters fought to protect their hands as well as inflict damage.

Sullivan's style looks a bit comical today, but I think if you took a modern boxer and asked him to fight under Sullivan's rules using his 'modern' stance and style, John L. would knock him into next week. The old style would maybe be more effective in a streetfight too (?) as modern bareknuckle fighters use the 'old' stance. If the new style was more effective they would be using it.

Equally, if you took Sullivan and asked him to fight in his style against a modern boxer under modern rules, John L. would be outworked, outpointed and probaly battered to defeat.

IMO, anyway.

Very well stated! CC

Styles are more often a product of the rules and how those rules are enforced, case in point clinching by "rule" is not allowed and looking at fights through the 60's "clinching" was not frequent without being penalized. Today clinching to quote Larry Merchant is "part of the fight" and is actually part of the strategy even creating a champion in Johnny Ruiz....so as the game changes so do the styles and tactics and also the would be champions...

Originally Posted by Lyle

That's right, Tunney beat 2 of the BADDEST brawlers in the world at the time....Jack Dempsey and of course Harry Greb

Here's some RARE footage of Greb too, sparring with Philadelphia Jack O'Brien

[youtube=425,350]HMA6Pd6tT3Q[/youtube]

look like kangaroo's lol