[Deleted by user.]

Corbett looks simply awful on film.

 

Carnera

Corbett not underrated.

 

Corbett always did appear quite tall. Generally given 6’1”, much less often 6’1 1/2”. Perhaps short-falled ever so slightly even on the latter height. Often appeared to edge Jeffries, sometimes they appeared even - Big Jeff prob 6’1” himself, not 6’ flat as boxrec has him - the boxrec height apparently sourced from a measurement made in 1900 or so.

 

The weights are just guesses. Not from weigh ins. They are not accurate enough to say he was lighter at 183, than 188. He actually explicitly stated he was intending to not train down as he normally did in the second Jeffries fight.

Patterson and Jimmy Ellis both weighed far lighter in professional fights than the lowest weight estimates for Corbett. There have been tons of fighters who went up from Light Heavyweight to Heavyweight.

 

The Times Democrat from 1892 Sep 08 (the day after Corbett beat Sullivan), said Corbett's weight was announced at 189Ibs.The Daily Picayune says 178Ibs. The descripency shows how much the weights can be trusted.

The whole "he weighed in the 170s" puts so much on a couple outlier weights on boxrec, from a time when they aren't at all accurate.

 

The champions you mentioned were all tiny guys moving up in weight. Tunney was a light heavy. Charles was a damn welterweight in the amateurs. Patterson was a middleweight. Tunney had a thin resume at HW, moved up and grabbed his belt then retired somewhat similarly Spinx and Jones.

I wasn't saying Tunney weighed exactly 170. My point was any 26 year old who weighs anywhere near 170 is a very small heavyweight by almost any eras standard.

 

Corbett, by far.

I'd say Carnera is given more favor in an era-to-era comparison, based on his size alone.

 

I'm aware that there were many fighters who went up from light heavy to hw. But thide fighters do no represent the average contender in eras beyond Corbett/Jefferies. Once you get to the Louis era and beyond, it was consider a bold move for another heavy to attempt to win the HW championship and if they won it was a historic event.

 

Within the accuracy of the weights, Corbett was about the same weight or heavier than these champions and top contenders: Sam Langford, Jack Dempsey, Young Stribling, Max Schmeling, Tommy Loughran, James Braddock, Billy Conn, Jimmy Bivins, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Jimmy Ellis.

And all of these guys were either Champion, or considered among the best contenders in the world.

Corbett's weight was perfectly normal weight to see for a Heavyweight for most of the history of gloved boxing. If you are discounting Corbett because of weight, then all of these need to be discounted as heavyweights too. I'd be surprised if you could find a single year before the

And since you've still had
Michael Spinks, Michael Moorer, James Toney, Roy Jones Jr., Chris Byrd all coming up from Light Heavyweight to beat top heavyweights.

 

You are continuously missing my point, which was that the later the era the less likely you'll find that the average contender or champion was below 180. You can simply look at the average weights for guys in the top 10 from the Joe Louis era onwards.

I believe it was either you or 70's fan who claimed Corbett wouldn't be considered small compared to the average HW until the 70's onwards and that's flat out false.

You bring up Langford ignoring that even back then people made a big deal out of his tiny size and thought it was remarkable he could fight heavies. Which means it wasn't common. Rocky, Tunney, Conn, etc were considered underdogs because they were so small. The only way you can claim 178 pound Corbett wasn't small is if you ignore historical context and the average size of contenders and champions.

 

You keep citing incorrect weights for Corbett, all I've done is correct you, and point out he was the same size of numerous later Heavyweight champions and top contenders.

 

Corbett weighed around 185 lbs for majority of his fights (at least from which we have the numbers, which are not 100% reliable anyway). That's the size ot Dempsey or Marciano.

 

Prove these weights are incorrect then. You just said they "guessed" so how can you claim they're wrong??? 178 is very small for almost any era, even back then.

 

Apparently lots of listed weights are "guesses" according to bitplayer and some fights have no data at all. So how can you claim he was 185 for the majority? He was supposedly only 178 when he won the title.

185 is still small. Rocky and Dempsey were called underdogs because they weren't very tall and didn't weigh much. Before you respond that they were supposedly normal sized, they were frequently made fun of for their smaller size according to the boxers themselves in their biographies.

 

You've stated Corbett was a Supermiddleweight, in the 160s, 170, when 178 is the absolute low end of his weight estimates, and there are many more which cite his weight in the 180s.

You are literally claiming weights for him that are below the low end of his weight estimates.

You said it was a bold move for a fighter that size after Louis, when of the next 4 champions after Louis, 3 were in the same weight range as Corbett.

If you had simply said he was at the smaller side of Heavyweights, or you wouldn't see a fighter his size at heavyweight now that'd be one thing, but we are comparing him to a fighter who fought in an era where numerous guys Corbett's size, and some smaller, were competing at Heavyweight.

Mickey Walker, a former Welterweight and far smaller than Corbett, fought Sharkey (the guy Carnera won the title off) to a draw, and also beat Uzcudun (Carnera's first title defence), and also fought Tommy Loughran (Carnera's second title defence).