Film about boxer gave underwear its name

JOHN Gordon (Yorkshire Post, January 14) asks as to the origin of the term Long John. Well yes, it is one of those terms and expressions which came in during the last Great War. However, during that time a film was circulated on the life of one John L Sullivan, a celebrated boxer of his day, a champion of the early 1900s.

In those days it seems that in the ring, boxers wore tights, and not the shorts of the present day.

We as soldiers saw and enjoyed the film and, it was a topic of conversation afterwards, there were thousands that would do likewise.

Now, shortly after the film ,we were issued for the winter season – I quote: “Drawers, long woollen” and it was only a matter of an hour or so before these were likened to the tights worn by John L Sullivan becoming known as “John L’s”.

There was a shorter type: “Drawers, short woollen.” John L’s were black while ours were a natural colour. They were always “John L’s” to us soldiers, whatever.

Neither of these garments were much favoured and most of us stuck to our shorts which were of a sort of sturdy Aertex.

It would seem that with the advent of “John L’s” for women that the term “Long Johns” became the accepted name.

From: Mel Warren, Wellhead Close, Bramhope, Leeds.

WHILE doing National Service in the Army in the mid 1950s, I was kitted out with standard military underwear, including Long Johns.

Even in those days, these down to the knees garments were classed as farcical.

So much so that, in fun, several of us would prance around the barrack room wearing them and taking the pose of the Victorian bare-knuckle fighter John L Sullivan.

We assumed at the time that the garment derived its name from him, being identical to those worn by this famous boxer.