Jim Corbett v. Bryant Jennings

Hands low isn't a flaw. Back then they were using 4 or 5 ounce gloves. Very inefficient for blocking punches. Hands low conserved energy for 25 rounds. His chin isn't out in the air any more than Muhammad Ali's was.

Any fighter who does what today you would call good defense, mechanics, etc back then would have been flattened.

 

Bad technique gets excused by the wider boxing audience when it's presented in state of the art multimedia intended for maximum visual stimulation.

I think anti-classic boxing fans are the only people in the world who downplay the extraordinary leaps in motion picture technology of the last 100 years. Everyone else seems to realize that you cannot make Inception with the cameras Chaplin used.

When Ruhin turns his back to Jeffries after getting hammered, people here say "Oh my god, what kind of technique is that? What an amatuer, I can beat him." But if Mike Tysons opponent gets hammered, and turns his back to Tyson those same people will go "Wow! Tyson, what a monster!!! Omggg!"

In this example, people are looking at Corbett playfully owning an amateur to demo Edisons new toy, and are expecting to see an Ali-Liston type performance. Yet, if ESNEWS was filming a modern fighter in training, playfully owning some dude in the ring like this, you would think nothing of it. https://streamable.com/kithq

If advertisers use the color red to incite hunger when you read their billboard, you don't think 120 years of video technology isn't effecting your subconscious perceptions in a seriously major way?

 

His looks beyong awful. Deontay Wilder looks like prime Larry Holmes comparing to Corbett

 

Corbett was obviously a tough guy but I don't think he was much of a boxer, despite the legend that the writers of the time and in the following decades made of him.
Not only the footage but his record doesn't bear that out either.

 

Corbett looks much different and much better in real fight against Fitz. Very quick and clever fighter with tons of feints and very good clincher. Used jab well and many times attacked Fitz with fast, well placed combinations (something a lot of people here think that was created in Dempsey times).

 

Not in Fitzsimmons fight. Here he looks much better than in Edison "fight".

He's not the most active fighter but I would definitely say that he was very good boxer. If not, he wouldn't have made Fitzsimmons struggle so much. Or Jeffries in the first fight. Corbett was the guy who had huge talent (reflex, quickness and stamina) but his style was better for modern 12 rounds fights rather than fights to the finish. I'm sure he would fare better as a heavyweight in 1940s or 1950s.

 

Corbett come s on strong at the end of the fight , to get a decision win .

 

How??

He will be giving away 11in. in reach… so I don't see him out-jabbing Jennings from the distance.

And at 50 lbs lighter, I can't imagine him out-fighting Jennings in close.

So how will Corbett pull this off, in your opinion?

 

How does someone beat someone bigger and taller? Because plenty have done it.

 

Bums

 

He'd use his scientific brain to tire Jennings out , then get himself the points win .

 

I agree. Jennings is bigger and fairly athletic, but, he has a nonexistent ring IQ.

 

Exactly Bert !
Compare Ali's IQ with Foreman s in the rumble ,He used his brain over brawn

 

Corbett looks like an untrained person slap boxing in the video, a well trained fighter couldn't look that bad if he tried. Corbett today, just as he was in his prime, couldn't win a 4 round fight at a club show. At his best, he might be the caliber of the guys Butterbean knocked out in one round during his tour. And he's not alone, Baer, Galento, Willard, Carnera, Firpo, etc. also fight like they never had boxing training.

 

Yup. Feet all over the place, wide open and terrible technique. Would be totally unknown in this era.