Corbett vs. Jack Johnson

Jeffries was old and drained. But regardless, I was careful to add the qualifier that only some of Johnson's opponents were significantly smaller than he was. Several were.

Corbett didn't just rely upon his legs. They were one part of the package.

But yes, I did note that Corbett's style was more energy consuming because he used his legs more. Corbett will not be doing as much running here because Johnson is not aggressive.

Hard to tell on film, honestly. And Johnson isn't exactly an unbiased source. How did other experts compare them?*


* (Aside from the guys 60 years later who claimed that Corbett was faster than Ali, etc.)

Yes to all of the above. Though several of these are not advantages that would directly play into this sort of fight.

So against a top contender and excellent boxer-puncher, his footwork stalled after 30 rounds. That's not too bad, actually.

For this matchup -- where Johnson will not be up on his toes pressing the action, especially after 30 rounds -- I don't think that this would do much to Corbett's chances.

It's possible, which is why I said that Johnson would be the favorite.

But Fitz was a MUCH better puncher than Johnson. Johnson was a solid hitter, but Fitz was one of the harder punching guys from his decade. Fitzsimmons also stepped on the gas pedal and attacked more frequently throughout his career.

He hit a lot harder than Johnson. And it took him 13 rounds to wear Corbett down.

As I said, Corbett was not a stranger to the clinches.

Johnson will eventually wear him down if he can make this an inside fight. But Johnson isn't going to be forcing clinch work most of the time.

It's certainly possible that he could. Johnson was not an aggressive power puncher. He wasn't Fitzsimmons, or Sullivan, or Choynski (or Jackson, really). Johnson may have been in Jeffries' league as a puncher, but he was certainly less aggressive, and an old Corbett did a number on Jeffries the first time.

...Who blasted out heavyweights and remained the best heavyweight in the world for years afterward.

Yup. And he was old.

Misleading. Sullivan certainly wasn't the fighter he was, but he was still dangerous and one of the best fighters in the world.

It's like Joe Louis when he faced Marciano -- hardly close to his best, but still at a contender level.

A long fight which he won.

A monster puncher who was just as skilled as Corbett. Plus Corbett might have already been past his best here at 31, with relatively little boxing over the last few years.

Johnson spoke highly of Fitzsimmons' technical abilities, for that matter.

This seems a rather "heads I win, tails you lose" way to go about it.

Neither man was able to put up a winning effort because both exhausted themselves against each other in a marathon match. They were top contenders who couldn't find an opening to finish an endless fight.

When did I say that Corbett had anything on Johnson for stamina?

I said that Corbett's stamina was more than sufficient for its task here. It is.

Sharkey beat up an aging Corbett who'd already lost the title because he could force Corbett to move and clinch frequently. When has Johnson displayed anything like Sharkey's aggression?

That's true, but both had hitting power and aggression (Fitz less so than Sharkey on the latter) that Johnson lacked.

Obviously, Corbett and Johnson, respectively.

But Corbett's "running" from Johnson's "stalking" is going to be a lot less energy consuming than a fight against Sharkey or even Sullivan.

I agree that Johnson has better stamina. But Corbett's stamina was quite good, and you haven't shown that Johnson's going to set a high enough pace that the stamina difference would matter.

There's just not a decisive differential here.

This is going to be a really slow-paced fight, though. Almost certainly slower than Jackson / Corbett. Definitely slower than Sullivan, or Sharkey, or Jeffries.

Corbett's not going to need to jump around like a jackrabbit in the early rounds. Just move a little to keep his preferred distance against a man with the same height and reach.

I would agree, since Johnson's defensive game had dimensions that Corbett's lacked -- equally great outfighting skills, but with a stiffer punch and better infighting. I just don't see his assets playing to Corbett's weaknesses.

Neither man had anything close to modern skills.

Johnson's infighting is certainly more modern, and he's got the glove blocking. A lot of Johnson's stuff is outside of the mainstream -- you can tell that he assembled it on the road. It's a stylistic mix-n'-match that ultimately came and went like Burns's approach to boxing. A relic of the transitional period.

But then, I've never cared very much about technical orthodoxy as much as what works. Johnson's style worked under his rules. Corbett's style also worked under his rules.

True, but even 45 rounds is still not a fight to the finish, where Johnson probably WOULD win.

I deliberately gave Johnson a long time to close the show here, but I don't think it's an insurmountable advantage. Just an edge.

 

By modern standards of technical boxing, he's right. Undeniably right.

...But he neglects to mention that Johnson's "archaic" style would run over a modern boxer under 1890s rules, because it's built for those rules.

 

I agree.

If Johnson could take this to the inside and consistently stop Corbett from escaping, he'd win.

 

I know.

It's just a matter of record, though, that many of his opponents were significantly smaller than he was. So I mentioned it. Corbett would be a taller, rangier boxer than many of the opponents Johnson faced.

Johnson was generally not an aggressive fighter, and we don't see much aggression from him on film.

That's true, but I assumed that you were using it as evidence that he actually had better handspeed.

I think that this was a reasonable assumption on my part, since it wouldn't tell us much about this matchup otherwise.

That's true. What do the other guys who'd seen both fight say?

He'd destroyed Maher a little over a year before. He held the Australian heavyweight title at a time when Australia was the second/third most competitive heavyweight scene in the world. Jackson was considered one of the three heirs apparent, along with Corbett and Slavin (whom he defeated after Corbett).

Jackson may or may not have been in his absolute prime against Corbett -- I think that he was -- but he was an exceptional fighter.

Yes, Fitz was also past his best.

But as you know, fighters age at different rates. Corbett relied on reflexes and speed more than Fitzsimmons, who was an Archie Moore type.

In any case, I never said that Corbett was a geriatric or anything. Just that he'd lost a little bit compared to his peak -- just like Ali did at 30/31.

When did I say he had stylistic similarities? We were discussing stamina. It took more stamina for an old Corbett to outpoint an aggressive puncher like Jeffries than it would to fight a chess match at long range with a largely stationary Johnson.

...I suspect you're playing to / trolling Mendoza with this comment, so I'll leave you two to sort this detail out.

And he was widely considered one of the best heavyweights in the world for all that. (He'd also had frequent exhibitions). A step behind Jackson, Corbett, and Slavin. Had unbiased rankings existed back then, Sullivan would have been about 4th or 5th in the world.

(Kilrain and Mitchell were in the lower end of the top 10, and Sullivan had defeated both of them).

Louis was an example to illustrate a trend -- great champions ultimately age into good contenders. That was the case with Sullivan.

From a technical standpoint, Fitz was absolutely as skilled as Corbett. He didn't have the same speed.

Was Roy Jones a better technician than Toney or Hopkins when he made them look bad?

Late in a 61 round fight, when both guys were gasping for air, I would not expect a high output. I would expect a fight against Johnson to be "almost certainly" slower than the Jackson matchup started off because Jackson was a more aggressive boxer-puncher than Johnson.

The answers vary from fight to fight. Because Johnson was an incredible counterpuncher. Because some of his better opponents were smaller, or had shorter reach. Because many of his opponents came to him rather than the other way around. Because Jeffries was a physical wreck who moved into punches anyway. Because Willard was active and large enough to force Johnson to move forward, and gave him countering opportunities because he lacked Johnson's skill.

Johnson was one of the more stationary boxers among the heavyweight champions. That's just the way he fought on film. We can post the Youtube footage here if you like.

You seem to think that this is some sort of disparagement. It isn't. Johnson's style worked when boxing was a marathon event. It would give him a big edge in a long fight because he conserved energy. But he wasn't very aggressive.

No. I imagine that he never faced clever, heavyweight boxers of Corbett's caliber in nearly 100 fights.

Johnson doubtless could fight aggressively, just like Joe Frazier could fight defensively if called upon to do so. He just wouldn't be as good at it, because that's not how he fought most of the time.

Jeffries was an aggressive fighter, hit hard, and mauled his opponents in clinches. He could close the gap quickly, and did. Both of these stoppages came far past Corbett's prime, as you know.

Styles. Johnson had tools that Corbett lacked against somebody like Sharkey. I'd frankly be surprised if he hadn't handled Sharkey in sparring.

It means that he might avoid the worst punishment on the inside, on those occasions where Johnson gets him there.

Again, you seem to be reading more into my claims than is actually there. (e.g., I said that Corbett's stamina is sufficient for its task, not that he had better stamina than Johnson. I said that Johnson would win on the inside, but that Corbett had a sufficiently competent inside game -- not that Corbett would win against Johnson on the inside.)

The same could be said of Corbett.

Thank you, and likewise. Always a pleasure to work out these matchups with you, mcvey. :good

 

When did I dispute this? I said that many of his best victories were against smaller men. That's just a fact. He had victories against larger fighters, too. That's also a fact. Both should be taken into account.

And yes, Corbett's resume has a lot of the same issues. (I'm looking at you, Choynski and Mitchell...)

Kilrain.

Also a somewhat misleading statement, since his results against Jackson and Jeffries were impressive regardless of who won. Moreover, Sullivan didn't need to be in his prime to be dangerous.

He 'd already had numerous fights, and was good enough to claim a piece of the lineal title later on. His ranking at the precise moment Jackson beat him isn't terribly relevant. If Johnson can hang his hat on thrashing green versions of Langford, McVey, etc. then Jackson can certainly do the same for Maher.

Jackson's best results aside from Corbett (Maher, Slavin, winning the "colored" heavyweight title) were around the time he fought Corbett. His sparring partners' anecdotes are less important than his demonstrated achievements. Jackson was considered THE best fighter in the world at that point by a lot of commentators.

And everyone drank like fish back then.

Nearly 5 years?

He fought a marathon against Kilrain in July of '89. Where he destroyed Kilrain, incidentally.

He fought Corbett in September of '92.

That's a little over three years, not five. Between Corbett and Kilrain, he had numerous exhibitions against competent opposition as well.

The people who followed boxing still ranked him as a very good fighter, and they'd seen a decent amount of him in exhibitions and elsewhere.

(And personally, I've always put the long length of the match down to Corbett not being able to punch very hard).

The distance between the Kilrain fight and the Corbett fight seems to be expanding as this thread continues. First four years, and then five, and now six.

He'd beaten Kilrain three years before. Three years and a couple months if you're feeling picky. The Mitchell fight had occurred many years earlier, but most observers predicted that Sullivan would blast him out under gloved rules.

I know that Corbett stood head and shoulders above the slick boxers in his generation, just as Johnson did. I have also seen him on film, where his boxing is as close to his era's idea of technical perfection as any fighter I've ever witnessed. I have the opinions of contemporaries who rate Corbett as one of the finest boxers ever to live. I have Johnson's own high opinion of Corbett.

If Martin was as good a technician as Corbett, then the average quality of boxing must have improved mightily in the interim.

He put pressure on his opponents as part of his gameplan. Moreover, this pressure is apparent in his filmed performances, where he's stalking, trying to land his lunging left hook, and mauling in the clinch. He was not a counterpuncher like Johnson or Fitzsimmons.

Contemporaries rated Fitz as a skilled fighter. On film, he does quite well against a much faster technician with longer reach -- and ultimately knocks him out. His manual shows a pretty subtle style of counterpunching that is also visible on film. He was skilled enough to remain competitive into his late 30s as a skinny guy two weightclasses beyond his ideal.

And how are Corbett's advantages in speed (and choosing to fight faster than Fitzsimmons did) irrelevant to this fact? Again, Roy Jones beating up Hopkins and Toney are apropos here.

Good thinking on his part. Still doesn't really show that Fitzsimmons was a less competent technician than Corbett, just that he thought that Corbett might beat him.

After all, Corbett hadn't been too keen on facing Fitzsimmons before they met, either. Once you had the heavyweight title, you milked it doing anything other than boxing.

Based on what, though? Modern standards of boxing technique? Old-timey boxing technique? A guesstimate of his style's "effectiveness"?

The old timers considered both men to be boxing geniuses. Corbett's clearly the more orthodox of the two by the era's standards. The modern guys would consider both to be incompetent and crude. Both did a lot of things "wrong" by modern standards, and Johnson was AT LEAST as big an offender as Corbett here.

This is really a styles question. They're both obviously experts at what they do, which means we need to delve into precisely how they fought rather than vaguely trying to quantify one or the other as better.

So then you honestly think that comparing Johnson's skills to Jeffries is like comparing Mayweather to Joe Grim?

 

Getting back to my original point about size, though, Johnson did not face many pure, slick boxers close to his own size. This is not a question of averages. It's a stylistic argument.

Corbett, on the other hand, did face a couple boxer/punchers his own size. (Jackson, Kilrain, maybe one or two others I'm forgetting or overlooking).

Contemporary opinion and his record said otherwise. Sullivan was fat, old, and far past his best. He was also a live threat, and remained one of the best fighters in the world.

Sullivan was a shadow of his former self, so in that sense he was "shot". But it was still a pretty tough shadow.

As I said, I'm judging his ability on a combination of contemporaries' opinions and film.

As far as film goes, there's enough on Corbett to make a judgment. He's demonstrating his techniques in more controlled environments (the Courtney match was technically a fight as well, just a pathetically mismatched one), and then you can look to see the same things in the Fitzsimmons fight. The footage is clear enough to see it.

How are you defining "boxer" then?

You mean a mobile slickster like Ali, Walcott, Conn, or Corbett? If so, that's fair enough.

If you mean that Fitzsimmons did not have the same level of technical skill as Corbett, then I would heartily disagree, and the evidence by and large supports me.

As I'm sure these debates have mentioned several times, Jeffries improved throughout his career. He was a lot more skilled at the end than at the beginning, and his evasiveness went up accordingly. He took a lot of damage early.

Also, the facial damage you've alluded to doesn't show a Joe Grim / Mayweather level disparity. Not even close. It just means that Johnson was significantly better at avoiding punches, which isn't nearly as over-the-top an observation.

Nor do I think that looking at a fighter's facial features is the best measure of his evasiveness. Faces get damaged at different rates just like everything else.

Jackson was good enough to destroy Slavin (to give one example) later on. He was good enough to be considered the best fighter in the world, including Sullivan and Corbett. He maintained this reputation for awhile after the Corbett bout.

19th century history is full of fighters who stagger from the bar to training camp and back again.

Sullivan drank heavily throughout his career. Half his training for the Kilrain match involved purging the alcohol from his system. Fitzsimmons, as you already alluded to, drank heavily. Kilrain drank heavily. Pretty sure Maher drank heavily, but I'd have to check on it. So did most of the others. You might as well list the fighters who didn't drink.

Corbett's reputation for sobriety was the exception to the rule that fighters got smashed whenever they felt like it. And even he was a drinker by our standards. It's just that he had good PR people.

1.5" plus Corbett's edge in height was a bigger advantage than you're suggesting here. He had the range edge on Fitz, and the latter's deeper stance only accentuated that.