Corbett - Jackson Draw a myth ...

Corbett or Jackson who has the better resume??

 

If a fighter had a 3 year prime ( As short as they come ) 1881-1883, one must ask who did he beat? The best fighter in that time line for Sullivan was Charlie Mitchell. Mitchell was was a middle weight who happened to floor Sullivan before going out in three rounds.

How durable was Mitchell? Well Corbett also beat him in three rounds.

I do think Sullivan was a break through type of fighter, as before him there weren't many big time punchers who toured.

As for Corbett vs Jackson, there was mention that Jackson's ankle looked okay during the match. Scoring it the way it was called by rounds, Corbett won more of them, but Jackson won some rounds by a larger margin. The two gassed out around round 25.

Corbett felt he had more left when the match was stopped, but you can't take Corbett's word that was the case.

 

Why do you think that Charlie Mitchell was the best available challenger in sullivan's prime?

 

I was using the years HE gave and felt Mitchell was the best he fought during those years.

I think Jackson, Goddard, and Slavin were much better than Mitchell.

 

George Siler, a former fighter and famous ref who saw the greats from 1890-1908 said Jackson was the best of the black heavies by long odds, and also mentioned Jack Johnson in the conversation.

 

Wasn't Corbett vs Jackson a fight to the finish? Didn't Corbett want to continue?

 

common sense and my own injury experience says if it was that serious a ankle injury he wouldn't have been able to fight that long. Damaged ligaments(what the limited amount i'd read made me think it was) just give up after a while then you gotta sit down for an hour. Old school toughness only goes so far.

When i was looking at that fight i felt it probably affected his performance as much if not more through lack of training as from actual pain/lack of movement in the bout.

minor point: since jackson didn't take his title fight I also credit jackson with being savvy enough to not risk his entire career fighting with a serious injury.

edit: was a while ago i read about this fight, did jackson fight with any ankle support? or anything else that might indicate injury/ allow him to fight if it was serious like some here are saying?

 

it's more than possible imo. he was aggressive early which adds credence to that. I just don't buy it was so bad we should take all credit from corbett or view the fight as a myth


to be fair i didn't know that until 5 minutes ago, sometimes common sense can be a dangerous thing. (wrapping it does help mentally tho).

 

i think corbett would have fought pretty much the same way if jackson wasn't injured, he would have more reason to run from a better jackson and would have still fought for the distance too.