Jim Corbett vs Jack Sharkey

So if someone doesn't see it your way, it's because he lacks the knowledge to understand that you are right, and he is wrong? Jesus... how can anyone be this arrogant!

 

STOP LYING. Siler stated Jackson is better than by long odds, and their trainer both Jackson and Johnson shared said Peter was a better boxer. End of. Deal with it. Those who saw both said Jackson was the better of the two.

Fight reports says Jackson had damaged ribs,. Who the heck are you to say otherwise? Jackson's mobility was not an issue during the fight. Show me any news report that says Jackson; ankle was an issue during the fight. You can't and you will run from this point...

On the Damaged ribs,

" the “Salem Daily News” reported that, although Corbett didn’t finish his man, he unloaded with body shots that kept Jackson from being aggressive afterward.

This content is protected

Yet Corbett also reportedly busted at least one hand in the fight, a fact that eventually contributed to the fight grinding to a standstill. The brutal truth slowly became clear: both Jackson and Corbett were no longer able to effectively defeat one another. They both continued on gamely, but neither man could emerge victorious. "

I don't doubt he went to a sauna, you often use junk to prove a false point.

 

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll reply. l Dubble see's it like this " And Jim Corbett stopped winning fights when his opponents didn't get drunk between rounds and someone else learned how to jab. - Dubble Chin.

Right there is ignorance.

Moving on from that what did you think of the boxing lit I provided that had Corbett's name on it with no mention of Jack Sharkey? Did you get a chance to review post #135?

 

Which filmed fights of Fitz and Corbett would he have seen?

 

Fitzpatrick was never a trainer he was a boxing manager the link you got your information from is rubbish.

Siler said for punching power Jackson was better but for cleverness there was nothing between them and he never saw Johnson when he was the champion,because he died in June1908 6 months BEFORE Johnson won the title from Burns!
NB Siler's book was published in1907 Johnson won the title on Boxing Day1908!
Jackson went to a sauna , sat down with Corbett who was in there, and discussed the fight ,something else you didnt know about!
Now you've asked ;
Q.Where I got Corbett's record from which lists him as 11-4-3 ?
A.The Boxing Register Of The International Hall Of Fame pages 66&67
Q You asked for a link to Jackson having a damaged ankle saying you've never seen one .Well you have now!
A.CBZ Jackson entered the ring with a sprained ankle and a cold which prevented him from training for the ten days leading up to the fight!
Will you acknowledge these primary sourced answers?

 

Nope. That's about right. (LOL) Fitz jabbed. Jeffries jabbed, sort of. And they weren't drunk. Who did Corbett fight who was an excellent jabber (like Larry Holmes, for instance) and also wasn't drunk? (Because a guy like Kid McCoy was drunk morning, noon and night.)

Has the world been sleeping on Dominic McCaffrey's jab?

I'll wait. I'm sure it's a long list. And you're the king of lists. (LOL)

Different sports. Different eras. Jack Sharkey mops the floor with Corbett.

 

I think you might be drunk. Corbett fought Peter Jackson who has a fine left and avoided his and landed his own more often. He also fought a very talented boxer mover in Kid McCoy and beat him. McCoy not only had a good jab he added a twist to it, his "corkscrew " which produced cuts. You question was easily answered,

I think I just happen to now a more about times and the authorities who commented on them, who all say Corbett was the better than Jack Sharkey.

Very few fighters enter the ring drunk, and none of them drink during the action, barring Coopman who was badly outclassed by Ali. If you can prove McCoy was drunk vs Corbett, that will be news for everyone.

Larry Holmes had perhaps the nest jab in divison history. By using his name you setting the highest possible bar as if to say unless he out jabbed Holmes it doesn't count. I think you just misinformed, Jack Sharkey and Corbett were roughly the same size, Corbett was much faster and had the better chin. Corbett was the better athlete as well.

The only man in the 1930's who was viewed as ad good or better than fighters from 1900-1920, was Joe Louis. It's really not hard for me to say who was better at football or basketball in a 20 year period and in many cases I can say it was the guy 20 years ago, so why not trust those who actually saw it?

We aren't talking about Wilder here, you can cool it.

 

Your reply is Kid McCoy (who I pointed out as a drunk) and Peter Jackson (who Corbett didn't beat).

Got it. (LOL)

Thanks for backing me up.

 

Jim Corbett had one win between 1900 and 1920, and it was a fixed fight against a notorious drunkard. (LOL)

Jesus Christ. Enough already.

Corbett was a pioneer. But the sport evolved in the 20th Century, and Corbett wasn't a part of it. Corbett didn't and doesn't beat any heavyweight champ after Sullivan.

We don't have to imagine what Corbett was like. We can see Corbett on film. And it's not good.

Jack Sharkey easily.

Gotta go now.

 

Something odd about his. Why couldn't they boil the water to purify it? And I find it hard to buy one couldn't get clean water somewhere, like on a farm.

 

Still awaiting your reply to the underlined. ?

 

I wasn't talking about ignorance - but arrogance. We don't all have an equal amount of knowledge - so some are bound to be more ignorant (or less knowledgeable, which doesn't sound quite as harsh!) than others. But to think, you (and I don't mean you, specifically) can claim some sort of patent on the "truth" - I'm sorry, but that's arrogance!

Yes, I of couse read, what you had to say in post #135. Undoubtedly Sharkey had his fair share of unimpressive performances. Doesn't mean he would lose to someone like Corbett, though.

The lists you posted in #164: Seems to me, that a bunch of oldtimers are saying pretty much the same as everybody else. Probably because they don't want to be humilated by their peers for having the "wrong" opinion. For many years the "right" opinion was to think very highly of the earliest gloved HW champions.

You don't just post pre-1960 lists... but also quite a few individual ones from mid-60s to 1977. Do you really not see, how silly they are? In the majority of these Corbett is listed higher than Ali. In what universe does prime Corbett beat prime Ali?

You could also have included Tracy Callis' more recent HW Top-10... where he rates Corbett (#7) above Holmes (#10). Short of Larry keeling over in mid-ring from a heart attack, there's no way Corbett could win such a fight! To suggest otherwise, is sheer lunacy, imo!

The bottom line is this: Don't believe what nostalgic old-timers tell you. Use what you know, or (even better) what you have seen - and form your own opinion. I believe, the vast majority of posters here on Classic knows enough about heavyweight history, to be able to form a qualified opinion on a Corbett vs Sharkey fantasy match-up.

 

If this is news to you, and you don't want to read about it, watch Ken Burns' documentary Prohibition. The first episode is the lead up to Prohibition. For the first 100 years or so after the founding of the United States, basically, everyone drank beer or hard cider for breakfast, lunch and dinner ... during breaks at work ... and at night before bed. Most homes had a barrel of hard cider next to the door with a ladle in it so you could scoop up and take a drink any time. Then, in the mid 1800s, as more people in the U.S. began growing grain, the population gradually switched to distilled alchohol and whiskey. By the late 1800s, Americans drank three times as much hard liquor as we do today, and the population was MUCH MUCH smaller. They drank it all day.

Basically, if you didn't live in a town near a fresh water stream, water wasn't a first choice. Most larger cities were overcrowded with poor sanitation and sewage, and the water systems weren't great. If you lived in the country, there usually wasn't an irrigation system that flowed into towns because the populations weren't large enough. And it was difficult to find and dig up wells. How did you determine back then if there was water trapped under the ground if you just kept digging? So, for most of the country, both kids and adults drank some form of liquor all day.

Making your own wine, cider or beer was easier and the process killed the germs.

Drinking bad water could kill you rather quickly. But drinking that much alcohol also became a problem over the long term, as you can imagine. (LOL)

 

When I read that someone is a "boxing historian" my first inclination is to assume the person knows nothing about boxing other than lineage. I'm sure there are exceptions, but guys like Callis, Cox, Sugar, and more could not know anything about boxing fundamentals, skill, movement, etc. to have the opinions they have. To rate a guy like Corbett over a guy like Holmes or Ali should expose the rater as either a racist or a person who knows so little about what he is watching that his opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.

Rocky Pepeli, and Dickie Ryan, would be legends today if they had fought prior to 1960. Nostalgic "historians" and fans would be discussing whether Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, the K brothers, etc. would be competitive with them. When I look at old video I watch the fundamentals of the fighters, their footwork, balance, etc...the names or who they beat or who they fought mean nothing to me. Anybody that Corbett could beat was just worse than him, it wasn't because Corbett was some skilled boxer. Eras are not equal, just because someone was a champion 100 years ago doesn't mean that person could be a champion in a later era.