Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

Going by their fight it is inconclusive ... in finish fights with the 1291 rules Corbett could run forever in the hopes that his opponent would tire ... Jackson also entered the bout with a hurt leg which j=hindered his training ... in a set 15 round fight, who knows ? Jackson was supposed to be a marvel and Corbett's style, if JIm was forced to fight to win in a specific distance, is no a bad match up for Jackson ... just too hard to call .. I actually feel a prime Sullivan would have been a tougher match up for Jackson than Corbett ...

 

I've just read the opening post, i'm going to look a bit deeper and see if i can come to a conclusion i'm happy with. Good thread

 

Peter Jackson was better

 

I would personaly come down on the side of Peter Jackson.

I see a slightly deeper resume with more of the top names of the era, and I fancy that Jackson was a little better head to head at his absolute peak.

I am not saying that there is necesarily a big margin in it.

 

From my research on Jackson he was probably one of the very first composite-punchers/boxer-punchers. Perhaps he was revolutionising the way offensive boxing was to be used much in the way Corbett revolutionised the way defensive boxing was used. I'm not entirely sure.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on either guy, and don't have the time to research either guy, so will not pass judgement but thought that little thought might be useful to some.

 

Jackson was revolutionary in the sense that no previous heavyweight had ever had his combination of size and technical ability.

Jem Mace was the technician by which all others were measured and Peter Jackson was almost like a 200lb version of Jem Mace. Probably not something that anybody had ever expected to see. It would be like if a fighter emerged today who was as big as Nicolai Valueve, but had a similar skillset and athleticism to Lennox Lewis.

 

So perhaps a fore-runner to the 'Super Heavyweights'?

 

Verry much so.

He would have been something like Lewis today relative to what had been before.

 

I see Jackson's abilities as more the creation of postmodern imaginations. Sure, he was good enough to draw with Corbett and Goddard, but that does not make him a monster in my opinion, just another elite heavy of his era. Otherwise, there is much of his career that can not be judged by a modern perspective since we must merely rely on the opinions of observers who never saw a modern ring.

And how is a 6 foot 1 200 lb fighter the predecessor to the modern superheavy? Hell, Corbett was as tall and only 10 or so pounds lighter?

 

Resume wise I give Corbett the edge. Jacksons draw with Goddars at his very peak hurts him as does the Corbett fight, he was the more advanced of the two, career-wise at that time. Losses to Farnan and trouble with tough brawlers like Fallon, Lambert also hits at his overall standing. As against that people who saw him rated him very high.
Corbett had a decidedly thin resumee himself, a few short points wins over bare-knuckle/gloved cross-over fighters in McCaffrey and Kilrain, the Jackson draw, John L, and of course Choynski. No worth while wins in the last ten years of his career except the dubious McCoy fight but the Jeffries and Fitz losing efforts were commendable. No Slavin, Ruhlin, Maher or Goddard in there. Still I gave my vote to Jim for longevity and no really poor performance.

 

I do believe I stated he was elite. Beyond that, it is a real leap of intellectual faith to represent him as more. He does not represent some great leap in size for the division. Sullivan himself was a brute at 5-11, 195 to 200, and as I stated earlier, Corbett was near the same size as Jackson, 10 pounds lighter perhaps. The statement that he was a predecessor of the superheavies is a stretch at giving him more credit than is really deserved.