what do you think of peter jackson?

Taking your questions in turn:

1. He was probably injured for Corbett.

2. Very hard question to answer. You would need to know the social and political situation in the locations proposed at the time. He might have been faced by the very real prospect of being shot, or he might just have been precious.

 

Jackson was very fast, big for his time, skilled, and hit hard. It appears his chin was vulnerable to power punchers, but the same can be said for most heavyweights. I view him as a bigger and better version of Ezzard Charles. George Siler a famous ref of the time said Jackson was better than Jack Johnson by a good margin.


Was Jackson hurt for Corbett? Not really., he fell off a cart and sprained his ankle 2 weeks before the fight, but no fight report said the ankle was bothering him, or caused him to lose agility.


Going on the round by round report Corbett won more rounds, but Jackson won some rounds by a larger margin. There was little doing after round 25.


Corbett offered Jackson a re-match as champion, but only in New Orleans or Jacksonville. Jackson balked. Corbett's reason was he was famous in these two cities for his fights with Sullivan and Mitchell. Yes--when opportunity knocks, one must be prepared to take it on short notice. I think Jackson should have agreed to terms.

Jackson by all accounts was a gentleman and likeable fellow. While Sullivan refused to meet Jackson, he did beat Slavin, winning the British Empire title, which at the time was a big deal. Slavin was white, so the color line for Peter only prevented him getting a match with Sullivan. Jackson also sparred with Fitzsimmons, getting the better of it, and drew with a very good Goddard. I view Jackson as a top 25 all time heavyweight. There is no film of him in the ring, but he can be viewed walking around.

 

Apparently he was a very skilled fighter.....

 

My thoughts on the man are that was indeed a great fighter with his only weaknesses being that he wasn't an overpowering puncher (according to accounts of those that observed him) and may have been slightly chinny. I believe the complaint for the Corbett fight was a bum ankle but I don't give that a ton of credence. For one, it went on a damn long time, so long that a severely damaged ankle would have long given out. And secondly, he was vastly more experienced than Corbett, an advantage that would seem to outweigh all but the most damaged limb.

All in all, a great fighter, probably tied with Corbett as the second best heavyweight pre-1900.

 

Young Peter Jackson was greater IMO.

 

The other common thing said about Jackson is that he was past prime for the Corbett fight. this is often said, but i just dont understand it, looking at his record. I am not sure if most of these claims cropped up years later and were a fabrication/misunderstanding which wasnt too uncommon when looking back on fighters without the ease of searching the internet or whether this is based on fact, as it does make sense that he was not what he once was given that he was heavy alcohol abuser.

It also explains that Goddard draw, which has also always confused me. But he obviously wasnt totally gone given that arguably his best win in Slavin was to follow and he had just had a big win against Maher.

If you go by those in the know, though, Jackson may have been the greatest of the era. Those who were around all spoke glowingly of him.

I think in a tournament of the all time great heavyweights, he is probably the biggest unknown quantities (not including the likes of Ike who didnt have long careers). Some people who saw him would probably feel confident in picking up as a winner, and there are not too many people who could say that.

 

Jackson's win over Maher means nothing, Peter was then an amature middleweight.
Jacksons big problem was than he didn't like rough and tumble fighters and that's why I for one thinks a peak Sullivan beats him. However in the last years of John L's reign Jackson was without doubt the best fighter on the planet.

 

Lord of the Rings was good

 

I would have to agree.

Sam Langford and Harry Wills would very likley have failed in their bids for the title had they gone ahead, but in Jackson you realy do have a plausible uncrowned champion.

 

I like Peter Jackson better than Michael Jackson.

 

What do you think though about whether or not he was past prime around the Corbett fight?

I agree that he was probably the world's best at the end of JOhn Ls reign, although is it really fair to rank him better than corbett from the time of their draw?

I think you may be correct about him not liking the rough stuff, and wild offence might be his achilles heel. I get an inkling that Tom Sharkey might be Jackson's worst nightmare stylistically.

 

He's gone downhill after the Lord of the Rings, I think in the end he'll have a George Lucas type of career. Possibly a little better.

 

I never bothered watching Lord of The Rings. Doesn't interest me.
I know him from the Bad Taste and Braindead days, they were cult videos.
And for a remake King Kong was actually pretty good.