Jeffries v Tunney15rds

James J Corbett was 33, coming off a 2 year layoff, and had not won a fight in 6 years prior to fighting Jeffries. No way was he in his prime when he fought Jeffries! Where do fanboys come up with this ****? Everyone knows Corbett's prime was around the early 1890's when he fought Peter Jackson. The fact that Jeffries struggled so badly with an aging inactive fighter speaks volumes on his ability, more so than corbett.

 

The consensus of observers was that Corbett made a splendid showing, and showed much better form than he had in recent fight against Fitzsimmons and Corbett. I'm willing to go with that, without necessarily asserting he was better, as good, or quite as good as he was 1891-1893.

 

McVey, you do state many facts which indeed, can't be spun. However, you also insert spin -- "escaping a ko in another by his seconds walking into the ring getting him dsq'd" -- it's a fact that Corbett's seconds entered the ring (vs. Tom Sharkey)and that Corbett was dq'd; it's your opinion that Corbett would have been DQ'd. It was the opinion of some observers that Corbett was going to be stopped, while other observers thought that Tom Sharkey was tiring. From most accounts I've read both participants seemed to be going at it pretty good at the time of the interference.

It may be either that Corbett looked good against Jeffries because Jeffries wasn't so good, or it may be that Corbett performed well and made Jeffries look not so well. Many observers thought that Corbett had made his best showing in recent (by which I mean the last several) years and that, if Jeffries looked somewhat akward and slow, it was partly because he was fighting the fastest and most skilled heavyweight.

Maybe they were all wrong, maybe they were right, maybe they were somewhat right ... They did see the fight. They could have seen the fight and not understood what they'd seen. But I'd hate to just write them off.

 

Over 15 rounds Id pick Tunney to outclass Jeffries. Tunney was just too quick and too smart.

 

Thanks for the response, McVey.

The computers I use couldn't get on to ESB yesterday; tomorrow I'll mostly be going to Cleveland Zoo with a friend. Saturday I'll look over Apollack's Jeffries book; I'll also look around on the web and see what's available (I don't have accounts with any papers, but I'll see what's free).

I'm of two minds regarding 1899-1900 Jeffries. I think he was sort of 'regular unleaded' great at that point. I think Fitzsimmons was very puzzled by the croach and played to Jeffries strengths, making Jeffries look a bit better than he was (not that Jeffries wasn't good). Jeffries had very close calls defending against Sharkey and Corbett (I), and lost some repute in those fights. On the other hand, I do think he met strong challenges, and that he pulled victories out despite some adversities (bum left arm early in the Sharkey defense; some persisting trouble with the left against Corbett, as well as some very odd corner work). I think there are great heavyweights who, at their best, wouldn't have had the troubles Jeffries had against defending Sharkey and Corbett -- Fleischer's last book on Dempsey, interestingly, quotes Jeffries to the effect that Jack would have had little trouble with Jeffries challengers (who Jeffries none the less praised) -- on the other hand, I think that winning those fights with left arm issues (plus two fights with Fitzsimmons, albiet in good health) would be a formidable task for any heavyweight, if they'd have come along in Jeffries time.
I should also say I feel somewhat differently about Jeffries left arm issues in '99 and '00, and Jeffries hand problems in the earlier stages of his career. While I sympathize with Jeffries for his hand problems, Jeffries himself admitted he had improper punching technique at that time, so the hand problems sort of go with the territory. Where as the left arm dislocation was more a training camp brain fart moment on Robler's part. Of course, whether due to an accident or to bad habit, injuries lower ability regardless; I shouldn't go too far in acting like 'it wasn't the real Jeffries in there against Sharkey'. Yes, in a sense, it was Jeffries at leass than full potential; but Jeffries at less than full potential was what Jeffries really was at that moment.

 

Is there is an impostor in the house? Remember Boucher? The guy who posted the same stuff Mcvey did while Mcvey left for 3+ Months? Hmmm.....

Corbett at 33 had more left than the Demspey who fought Tunney.

 

I've been re-browsing Pollack's 'In the ring with .... Jeffries'.

It doesn't seem like Corbett was in immediate danger of being KO'd. I'd have liked Sharkey's chances of pulling it off eventually, though. They weren't quite at mid-fight (20 rounds scheduled) and, if Sharkey was getting tired during the course of the last several rounds, he atleast was showing up fresh and feisty at the starts of rounds; Corbett was just generally shaky tired. And Corbett was starting to fight Sharkey on Sharkey's own terms -- not, I think, a good thing, even though for the moment Corbett was doing it ably enough. But that's my opinion.

Why did Con McVey enter when he did? To get a DQ the get bets called off? Because he was upset about the fighting in clinches (contrary to the articles of the fight)? Because Corbett was starting to fight on Sharkey's terms? I'm thinking a combination of the second and third .... again, IMO.

One thing for sure -- Tom Sharkey was a pretty quick guy; Sharkey's speed is often cited in Pollack's book. I'm sure he was considerably faster in running down opponents than was Jeffries when Jeffries was operating in the 'crouch-and counter' mode.

 

Sharkey did very well vs speedy boxers. He was a pressure fighter who never stopped coming. A bit like Frazier in the sense that he did very well vs. skilled and speedy boxer types. EX: Choynski, McCoy, and Corbett.