JAMES J CORBETT V ROY JONES?

laughable matchup. Corbett slapping at Roy jones jr in his adult diaper as he's beaten silly

 

These guys are so distracted by the shiny trunks, and the graphic advertisements on the ring mats, that they don't realize that RJJ is almost sedentary the entire fight.

If RJJ vs. Ruiz was in black and white you might think he was fighting with a broken leg.
The closest RJJ comes to touching Corbett if whiffing his fart as Jim darts across the ring.

 

Reznick gets the troll of the day award!

 

He's morphing into a caricature of his already nutty self!

 

I'm embarrassed for you.

 

Reznick in the next thread:

"How Jeffires dances circles around Ali"

 

While humans as a whole have not evolved significantly in that time period, nutrition, training methods, PED's, weightlifting, etc HAVE caused a significant difference in what humans can achieve physically. Thats not my opinion, thats pretty irrefutable.

If Corbett was born in 1969 he would have looked much different physically than he did in 1900's. Jones would have been incredible physically in any era but certainly would not have been as strong nor as big had he come along in Corbett's time.

There are only 4 ways to do this:
1)Jones goes back from his prime to 1900's as is. he beats Corbett
2) Corbett comes to Jones' prime as is. And loses.
3) Jones goes back and we take away any advanteges he would have had in the 1990's. If he fights Corbett at HW now, he loses.
4) Corbett comes forward and us given all the advanteges he would have in the 1990's. He wins.

Thats it. There is no other way to do it. I dont see where there is anything crazy in what I said.

While actual evolution has not been striking since 1900, the things i mentioned have made a great deal of difference in what athletes look like and the things they can do. Thats why I dont think its fair to punish fighters for their eras. They would not look the same if they were born at a different time.

 

The problem with all this conjecture is that it isn't necessary; the question is "would this guy beat the other guy", not "if we gave this guy a better trainer and he had better nutrition and he wasn't going through a divorce at the time"...

Would this guy at his best beat this other guy at his best, based on film, his record, and (unfortunately) what we read... That's it.

If there isnt any film, your argument is based soley off reports and his record, the latter of which is much more helpful than the former, which should be the last thing of the three in significance regarding the opinion.

 

Yeah this is silly. If you refuse to appreciate that fighting techniques and athletes have improved over a century and a quarter. You are missing out on a fascinating and beautiful part of the sport.
If you you can not see the vast difference in skills and techniques when watching footage there is nothing that anyone can say.
I find it bizarre the strange need to grant sper powers to boxing's earliest particpants. It should be sufficient that succeeded against their contemporaries.

 

This is boxing 80 years ago...
https://boxinghalloffame.com/carnival-champions-boxing-september-23-1937/

yall been selling us snake oil

 

Corbett might have the best footwork of HW champs next to Ali and maybe Tunney and Walcott

Yall must've forgot.
https://streamable.com/ai81l

 

Oh yes.

 

Go forth bring on the dark age.

 

Corbett couldnt beat Tom Sharkey ,Marciano would **** him

 

Rudy knocks the Pompadour into the third row, if you must.