Jim Corbett vs Jack Sharkey

Go away you mentally ill man. I correct you daily. Sharkey lost a lot ( To no names ), was floored 15 times, didn't deserved to be champion, ect...

You're a Dempsey but sniffer on his opponents. You say Mitchell was small, okay, so was Walker, I see a vast difference in results as Corbett ended his fight with a middle weight in 3 rounds. As for Chosynki we known he cracked Johnson's face in 3 rounds, and you think he was the hardest hitter of the time because of it! Double standards have no bounds with you.

Wills was old, Godfrey possible handcuffed. Loughran also BEAT SHARKEY. Jacks' big three wins.

Corbett only lost cleanly to Fitzsimmons and Jeffries.

Sharkey lost cleanly 14 times! See post #135 and reply to it chicken little.

Now before you run away, can you show me any historical list that puts Jack Sharkey above Corbett? Well? I've asked 3x. Run Mcvey run!

 

That'll be the day.

 

I've never said Choynsky was the hardest hitter of all time ,I said and I produced the verified quotes to back it up that:
Fitz
Johnson
Sharkey
Said he was the hardest hitter they faced.
Where Corbett and Sharkey rank on an all time list is irrelevant, we are talking about head to head. Corbett gets a ranking above his true worth imo, because he was historically significant, being only the 2nd Gloved Heavyweight Champion .His record is very underwhelming 11-4-3!
ps Loughran beat Sharkey on a very close split dec.Sharkey ko'd Loughran, not many managed that!
Walker beat Levinsky and Uzcudun better men than Mitchell ever beat and real heavyweights!
Sharkey beat Corbett up ,and Corbett's second jumped into the ring causing Corbett to be dsq'd and saving him from a ko loss!

 

Corbett had fought Sharkey just 9 months before he was ko by Fitzsimmons, and Corbett was 30 years old, 3 years younger than Fitzsimmons.
Fitzsimmons began his career a year before Corbett.
You couldn't teach a frog to hop!

 

Total nonsense, as per usual! Fitzsimmons won world titles at 3 different weights and his punch technique was far superior to Corbett's ,as was his placement of punches.
Corbett lost to Fitz and Sharkey. Fitz beat both Corbett and Sharkey,plus Ruhlin , Maher, Gardner,O Brien ,and Dempsey.

 

You know nothing of the sort! Fitz was 3 years older than Corbett with more mileage on his clock.
You are an idiot!

 

I know what a well is. I am just telling you what actually happened in the U.S. in the 1800s. Whether you "don't get it" or not is on you. (rolls eyes)

 

Everyone,well everyone bar you ,knows Fitz was robbed against Sharkey in their 1st fight.

Fitz was so clumsy[clumpsy lol, ] without defence, yet he beat boxers like Corbett,O Brien,and Gardner,how did he manage it?

 

WTF!

 

You said this "By the late 1800's, Americans drank three times as much hard liquor as today, and the population is MUCH, MUCH, smaller."

Actually, the consumption of alcohol peaked in the USA in 1830 at 7.1 gallons of alcohol per capita. This high rate of drinking led to the temperance movement and later the prohibition movement, with per capita alcohol consumption dropping severely through the rest of the 19th century. By 1900, the per capita consumption had dropped to 2.5 gallons. That is ballpark with what it is today, about 2.3 gallons. It has been dropping in the last several decades since a post-prohibition peak in the 1980's, when it was over 3 gallons per capita.

So the stats point to alcohol consumption actually being higher per capita when Larry Holmes was champion versus when Jim Jeffries was champion.

And you are grossly wrong in mixing up per capita consumption with total consumption. There were 12.6 million Americans in 1830, and about 76.2 million Americans in 1900. There are about 330 million Americans today and the total amount of alcohol consumed today dwarfs what was consumed in 1830 or 1900. Per capita rates were much higher in 1830 but only slightly higher in 1900.

I think there is a good point about water in cities back then not being safe. But you dragged in the countryside and I know we were still using wells in my day that were dug back in the 1860's and 1870's when the farms were settled. And the water was clean and safe.

By the way, I own Ken Burns' "Prohibition" and plan on re-watching the early part to see what he says. I doubt if he confused per capita consumption with total consumption.

I don't dispute that boxers might have been drunk during bouts because I don't know. I do think it wouldn't have been necessary if they simply brought in clean water from a good well.