Corbett's skills can be viewed in the Fitzsimmons fight. He had a very good straight left or right to the body, delivering the blow bending low, landing it, then getting out of the way before the other fighter can react. His combination that floored Fitzsimmons was lighting.
I think the biggest clue is given at the beginning of the Roach video... "You never lead with an uppercut" I think this gets to the crux of the matter. That long uppercut was given as an 'instruction'. Today, you would not be instructed to do that, albeit that some fighters throw long uppercuts - and, some get away with it, while others don't. That said, I do get that, in those early years, gloved boxing under rules was at an innovative stage and 'techniques' were still being experimented with.
What do you imagine Roach is doing wrong here, compared to the film of Corbett's Folly? Even Monte Cox, a Classic apologist, admits that what Corbett's throwing here doesn't even belong in modern boxing: Northern kung fu! Not even a competitive ring martial art. Corbett's throwing something that belongs in a classical kung fu style. No wonder the traditionalists like him.
Lewis actually looks pretty clever there to me. He traps Vitali's left arm with his right glove and then pulls him forward so that he falls in squared up and out of position. Then he drills him with a very short punch. All while also pinning down Vitali's right arm.
They're not very similar though--at least not in the ways that count. Corbett's punch is much worse. Corbett is standing far from Tunney; Roach is literally head-to-head with his opponent. Corbett is completely visible to Tunney when he throws the punch; Roach's guy probably doesn't see the punch until Freddy's forearm whizzes past the side of his head. Corbett drops his fist below his crotch, like he's bowling; Roach stays much tighter and keeps most of his glove above his beltline. Pretty big differences. (And in my opinion, Corbett throwing a punch like that in an instructional setting, while he's acting like he's dropping knowledge or something, makes it that much worse).
I don't actually remember seeing an uppercut like that in the late 19th century London Prize Ring style manuals. They did throw their uppercuts at longer range (perhaps partly because they didn't have a left hook to worry about, and because their guard was already low), but I don't think they threw them like that. It might be a Corbett original, so to speak. If so, its uniqueness strengthens Monte Cox's point that it was a surprise weapon that Corbett wouldn't use very often -- like a spinning backfist or superman punch would be for a modern boxer. If you've never seen something like that, you might get caught once or twice before you realize how goofy it is.
?? They had left hooks. At the range uppercuts are often thrown now, they could be getting thrown to the ground.
They are mentioned in the Modern Art of Boxing from the 1700's, hard to think something so basic was ever lost. I'll need to have a look through more fight reports from this eraa.
Yeah, they're mentioned in Mendoza, but "rounding blows" (which probably looked more like the "swings" described in Fitzsimmons's manual than a modern left hook) were described in the later manuals as unscientific. Again, this is going from memory. It's been a while since I looked through the manuals, which are buried on a shelf as photocopies.
Corbett was insanely talented. You know who also had an unconventional uppercut? Ali. He wasn’t sitting down on short uppercuts like Roach demonstrates. Hell no. Also, Ali was a nimble, fleet footed, head slipping unorthodox outside boxer. And so was Corbett. Both of them had styles that don’t lend to short uppercuts with knees bent, crouched. That literally makes no sense. And expecting Corbett to use that particular punching technique goes to show the lengths at which old school critics go to utilize shallow arguments to see what they want to see. The argument implied in this thread makes no sense. Just more desperate legacy tarnishers at work.