Here's the N Y Times Article: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9506E6D91E31E033A25751C1A9639C946197D6CF In the first column is mentions that not much money was put on the fight, and many fans refused to bet and didn't think the fight was genuine. ''There was an absence of any propensity to gamble on the result as this was taken by the knowing ones to indicate that there was little confidence on the genuineness of the fight. ''Fake'' was the word heard of oftenest where the sporting element congregated and the gullibilty of the public that wants to see the fighting under any circumstances was freely commented upon. ''It may be on the level' said one wiseacre, '' but it seems strange that there hasn't been a cent wagered in any of the sporting resorts. The bookmakers have kept their hands off and if that don't look strange then I have missed my guess'' Does anyone know anything else about is, or what do you make of it?
Adam's terrific book covers it as well as it could be covered ... Check out the Brooklyn Eagle online archives as well ...
I think that the fight was almost certainly on the level. Corbett had been involved in some dubious fights at this point, and the fact that he was the underdog might have made people think that he would cash out. In practice he was aiming to win the title back.
Iv'e never thought otherwise, Corbett's ego probably told him he could recapture his former glory,and ,many say he nearly did.
Sorry, but by 1901-1902, Jimmy Corbett really had no chance at Jim Jeffries.... Legit or not, Corbett was much lighter and damn near a decade older...... Jeffries only drawback was, he lacked a serious resume or long list of fights.... Jeffries only has about 20 or 21 pro fights to his credit.... That being official.... Still, ole J.J. was a hulk during his peak yrs of 1899 to 1904.............. Cheers........ MR.BILL
