There is a film of him walking around, just not in the ring. If Jackson were American, his star would really have shined. IMO, he would have beaten Sullivan in the mid 1880's. The most relevant fact wasn't in the article I posted. Referee George Slier, who was fond of Johnson, said Jackson was better not just by a little, but by long odds, and he saw them both. Source Inside Facts on Pugilism, by George Siler, 1907. I highly recommend this free read. I prefer books written by those in the know when the action was happening. [url]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Inside_Facts_on_Pugilism/lFICAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover[/url]
What limitations? Jackson has wins over Slavin, Dooley, Denver Ed Smith, Maher, Godfrey and McAuliffe. Those of the time were in aw of his 1-2, which according to those present landed nearly at the same time, Jackson was probably the first really skilled 200 pound man. He had great speed and good power. I don't think he hit as hard as Louis, I do think he was much smoother and faster than Louis. Its clear Jackson had some power
Sullivan was quite skilled by most accounts and there were 200+lbs contenders in bareknuckle era. Louis had one of the quickest hands in division history. I'd not bet on Jackson having faster hands than him.
No.He said Jackson was the better hitter he also said there wasnt much between them for skill. And don't forget Siler died before Johnson reached his prime! June 13th 1908 6 months before Johnson won the title . Inconvenient fact that !lol I prefer those in the know too ,for example Siler said Johnson," had not a thimbleful of victuals in him when he fought Griffin." And that the," decision given to Hart over Johnson was ,"exceedingly strange."
We must remember, this is the opinion of Tracy Callis - which means, it should be taken with a grain of salt!
Goddard was no joke, but he did lose to Denver Ed Smith and go life and death with Joe Butler, as well as some poor performances later in his career. Goddard generally seems to have been considered significantly slower and overall worse not on the level of Sullivan. He was a top fighter, but I think that fight shows Jackson was never on the level of Ali, Louis or even Johnson. It's hard to know what to make of the Corbett Jackson fight, the reports are pretty inconsistent, my impression (which could be wrong), was that Jackson was more skilled but not as strong as Corbett, and Choynski also commented he thought Jackson was vulnerable to body punches. I agree it's a shame there's no footage, and he's certainly an important fighter.
His resume doesn't really stack up with the claims made about him does it? If he had managed to inveigle an old Sullivan into a match, or induce the reluctant Corbett to meet him again maybe we would be rating him significantly higher?
He'd obviously be ranked significantly higher with wins over Sullivan and Corbett, then again he could have lost both of those. We really can't know, but Goddard gave him a lot of trouble, and in rematch Corbett would be more experienced.
I think this fight would look like Ellis vs Quarry - it would be very boring with Sharkey winning by comfortable decision
Yes and no. He has a lot more good wins than Corbett for example. I think that he was probably the best heavyweight in the world at some point, but he was beatable. He had planes of weakness in his game!
Rough and tumble fighters gave Jackson trouble. Fallon, Lambert, Lynch, Goddard and Farnan all gave him more trouble than their status would suggest. As for Goddard, up to the Ed Smith loss he was as good as anybody but age and drink caught up with him. Jackson only hit the top level late in 1888 so he wasn't fighting/beating Sullivan in the mid 1880's.
