How great was Peter Jackson ? Anyone got any testimonials from contemporaries (writers, fighters, referees etc) ? Where does he rank against the other old-timers of his era and the adjacent eras ? Should he be ranked as an All-Time Great ? My knowledge of him is limited, but I think he's often overlooked.
Corbett who was never kind to fighters of color rated Jeffries 1A, and Jackson 1B. In his prime Jackson was too tall, too quick, to skilled, and packed a good punch. He seemed a bit vulnerable to aggressive forward mover types who could take it, and deliver a blow. Fitzsimmons sparred with Jackson and had the worst of it. I tend to think Jackson was a larger version of Ezzard Charles. Its a pity he died so young, and there was never any film on him in the ring. The NY times is a paper that gave Jackson a good amount of ink. Check their archives.
A fair few contemporary fighters said that Jackson was the greatest heavyweight of all time including Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Slavin. It is ultimately impossible to say how good he realy was because he never got the breaks, but I think he was at least as good as Corbett and probably better.
Perhaps the first out-fighting HW to have great success? His in game seemed to be lacking, which on the surface looks an enormous weakness for his era...it would be fascinating to watch him box and try to decode the methods he used to cover this apparent weakness. Economic mobility and technical punching seemed to be his great boons along with exceptional durability, stamina and apparent athleticism. I think it's fair to say he was the equal of Corbett and, like Janitor says, he may have been better.
At the time he was not so much seen as a what if as a was. The fact that he never held the title was almost irrelevant, like with Sam Langford. He was seen as a living legend.
Jackson was surely among the three best heavies of his era. As for a bigger Ezzard, that's a bit of a stretch give no footage of the man and the fact they were they about the same size.
Do you have any articles of the sparring sessions? I have tried to find these but never could. My understanding though, is that he did get the better of Fitzsimmons. Certainly, as far as testimonials goes, Jackson may very well have been the best fighter of all time. He was that highly thought of by his contemporaries. Remember, he was idolised by Jack Johnson and most people agreed (at that time) that the older bareknuckle fighters of the Corbett, jackson, Fitz and Sullivan days were far better fighters than the modern contemporaries like Burns, Sullivan, etc. Saying this, it was a young Bob Fitzsimmons, and Larry Foley was reported to get the better of both in sparring as well. So far as never being world champion goes, well that is very, very debateable. For a start, it isnt well known but John L Sullivan, actually came out of retirement to defend against Jim Corbett. Which means for at least a little while, his claim was as strong or stronger than Tommy Burns had. He was officially recognised by Australia as the world champion, and he had "unified" against the "british" champion. He was also the coloured champion. That alone, gives him a claim to the world title which is probably as good as either of the Klitchsko's ever had.
At the time he was somtimes described as a bigger version of Jem Mace! Among recent fighters, Larry Holmes is probably the best analogue, though of course you never know how superficial the comparison is.
Film would be nice. Jackson was a natural 195-205 pounder, a bit bigger than Charles. In a print comparison if there is such as thing, both were smooth and fast. That was the angle I was going for. I have read some on Jackson. His hand speed, accuracy and foot speed were great in his time. Jackson had a very good right hand, and was famous for his one two, which according to testimonials and news reports nearly landed at the same time! Jackson's greatest win of course was the Slavin fight. Slavin was undefeated at the time. Jackson did struggle a bit with Goddard, who was a very good, but perhaps not great heavyweight. I wish Sullivan would have fought Slavin and Goddard, who were white. If he did, we could have a much better idea on how good Jackson was. The Corbett vs. Jackson read is out there. I have read a full round by round report. Using the report alone to score the rounds, Corbett won more rounds, but Jackson won a few rounds by a wider margin based on power hitting. Things slowed down around round 23. There was not much doing past round 40. At heavy, I think Jackson was better than quite a few lineal champions. Hart, Burns, Willard, Braddock, M. Baer, are the easy pickings. Jackson is still in my top 35.
I'm of the understanding that Jackson was heavily favoured to beat Corbett, who was considered an upstart at the time, but they fought each other to a standstill. Was Jackson already past his prime at the time ? Or was it just a case that Corbett was better and more seasoned than given credit for ? Jackson was certainly reckoned to be a great fighter before he fought Corbett, and probably revered second only to the great John L. himself.
Sure. Goddard could be a beast. Another case of what could have been (Sullivan v Jackson, Corbett v Jackson II) but for the color of a man's skin. Or in Sullivan v Goddard, but for a man's taste for strong waters. And I agree, he could have been better than quite a few lineal champs, though there was some doubting about his ability to take shots, especially to the body (tho that was the favorite stereotype of the day regarding Black fighter.) Who knows? His contemporaries surely thought high of him.
Well Eddie Graney thought Jackson would beat fitz but Fitz was the better pound for pound fighter. http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cd...-20--1----greatest+fighter+of+all+time-all---
