james corbett h2h against the next guys

Jim Corbett vs Gene Tunney would be a good starting point, since this was discussed by people who saw them both fight.

The general feeling seems to have been that they were of a comparable technical level, but that Tunney could give and take a better punch.

If these people were thinking remotely allong the right lines, then Corbett would have been a tough match for all of those fighters.

 

Difficult to say without better footage on Corbett or a similar context (i.e. so much of the sport changed between the time of Corbett and Hopkins). Given the reviews of Corbett I have read in the press and the fact that he held his own against Peter Jackson and defeated a past-it Sullivan, I would say he has a better chance against this crew than most will give him. Obviously, it is impossible to say with certainty given the factors mentioned above. I think Charles, Patterson and Tunney are the ones I would give him the least chance. He would certainly have to adjust his game to fit the modern ring but he had the size, speed, craft, underrated strength, fitness and toughness.

 

charles, spinks, patterson. i pick to beat him comfortably
rjj. conn, foster, also win
the rest would be competitive imo, maybe his best chance to win is staying away from qawi or outworking hopkins

 

Boxing probably moved on after Corbett and got more competitive as a sport. The limited footage of him looks pretty amateur too.

I'd pick everyone on the list to beat him

 

I don't think I could say 100% with any of them, because he would always have a "boxers chance". Some of his contemporaries who rated him very highly such as Jack McAuliffe, argued that Tunney could have beaten him, so that might not be a bad starting point.

Of the people who beat him in his own day, nearly all of them knocked him out. The only people who got anywhere against him on the score cards were pressure fighters such as Tom Sharkey.

 

Roy Jones Jr, Michael Spinks, and Bernard Hopkins would absolutely school Corbett. They'd make him look like a fumbling amateur toughman competitor.

 

Yes, i know who Jim Corbett was. Do you know what Boxing is? My post stands.

 

Everybody who saw Corbett fight that survived into the 30s or 50s continued to rate him.

Now you could argue some of them were sentimental and viewed the earlier era through rose tinted glasses, but is it plausible that everybody who saw him fight without exception was delusional?

If there had been this epic advance in boxing technique between the 1890s and 1920s, then somebody somewhere would have identified it at the time.

 

Before the 1910's, the sport was nothing more than glorified toughman contests. (And before Queensberry, it was even worse, organized street fist-fights at best.) Period. It's difficult to take Boxing seriously as a sport before 1910.

 

No disrespect, but you don't seem to know anything about boxing before 1910.

On what basis would you argue that the fighters of this period were any less consumate profesionals than those of later eras for example?

 

Could n't have put it better myself !

 

No offense taken. No disrespect to you either. I know boxing. I'm referring to their skills, not their integrity or character as professionals in their trade at that time. We are discussing two different animals here. The skill level alone isn't even comparable. Corbett would likely have a difficult time even just landing a shot on Roy Jones Jr for example.