Good Lord. Are you purposely trying to derail this thread? You go right ahead and rewatch that documentary. Go to the 4:20 mark below. Here's a quote: "By 1830, the average American over 15 years of age drank the equivalent of 88 bottles of whiskey every year, three times as much as their 21st Century descendants drink." https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/#id=2082675582 And how much have you actually read about fights from that era if you had no idea they drank booze between rounds? Seriously. For example, a quick search of the Sullivan-Kilrain fight shows Sullivan switched from tea to Whiskey between rounds in the Kilrain fight around the 44th round. All I did was type Sullivan, Kilrain and Whiskey. It took seconds to find that. So, I guess the great John L. only had about 30 shots of whiskey in that fight, instead of 70+. How drunk would you be after 30 shots of whiskey? Don't write hundreds of words telling me I'm wrong if you haven't even bothered to read anything about this. Like I suspected, you're just arguing to argue. I'm done talking about digging wells. Jack Sharkey destroys Corbett.
Well they were different fighters. In his day Fitz was better. I have broken down the 26 minute film Fitz vs Corbett and my conclusion is is the fight was just 12 rounds, Corbett is the easy winner. I think anyone who saw the film would agree with that. For those who want a really good blow by blow analysis in Fitz vs Corbett, I can post that in a different thread. Corbett is the better boxer mover by far, Fitz, the greater puncher by far. Both as ATG's There was no re-match. But who was Jack Sharkey? He lost a lot. He was floored at least 15 times, and he didn't deserved to be champion unless someone things the Schmeling robbery didn't happen. Corbett would UD him.
Say no more, Dubblechin is convinced they all entered the ring drunk! This happened on rare occasions, and they are mentioned. I've never seen him post a fight report but I'll ask him to produce one.
You often say Choynski was the era's hardest hitter. Do you forget what you saying? Hahaha. You remain a joke. No you didn't say he was the hardest hitter of all time. That's your cover, like a thief say I never stole a car ( to appear being honest ) , when the took the jewelry. You'll never understand Corbett's " box rec " results. He fought the best of the times, winning some ( What was it 5-6 vs hall of fame opponents? ) , drawing ( to an ATG in Peter Jackson ) and losing only cleanly to Fitz and Jeffries. In the past when its a hate Jeffries thread from you praise Corbett. I guess this isn't the thread for you to do that. Such is your double standard. Now do you really want to go over ALL of Sharkey's losses, how many no names floored him, and whether he should have even been a lineal champion? I think not! No historian say Jack Sharkey was as good as Corbett. Not one of them. Now are you going to give up trying to produce a list which says Jack Sharkey was the better?
Sharkey could not win 16 of his fights, many of which were to no names. Sure, sure he was better! To make you feel better I think Wilder had a better chin that Jack Sharkey did. By chance did you see the content I posted? No historian thinks Sharkey was better than Corbett. That should mean something,
We're all historians. We can all watch more film of Corbett and Jack Sharkey than nearly ALL the historians you quoted EVER saw. We can pull up more information in one day than a historian driving cross country visiting libraries could in a year. That's all we do here. Discuss boxing history. Share boxing history. Research boxing history. Write about boxing history. Watch boxing history. Who Max Baer rated in 1959 as the best has ZERO bearing on what people think in 2020. 61 years has passed. That's like saying in 1898, Fitz thought these guys were the best ever. That's nice. But a lot of great fighters have fought since then. We (all of us today) have all seen more fights and fighters than anyone in 1959 ever did. We can see and read the information and view the fights ourselves. Use your eyes. Corbett sucked. The guys he fought looked awful, too. Jack Sharkey looks much better. His opponents looked much better. Their fights were much better. The quality of the fighters was much better. Jack Sharkey kills him. That's all. Enjoy the rest of your day.
But that's clearly not true - of the 19 historians that so far have voted in the poll, 16 back Sharkey. Pretty clear margin, wouldn't you say?
Produce one single post in which I said Choynski was the hardest hitter.You wont because it never occurred and you are flat out lying when you say I did. I understand Corbett's record perfectly well he won 11 fights and lost 4 and had 3 others ,the Jackson fight is variously described as a draw /no dec.Here is his resume Jeffries L ko10 McCoy W ko5 Jeffries L ko23 Sharkey L foul9 Fitzsimmons L ko14 Mitchell Wko3 Sullivan W ko21 Caffrey W ko1 Spilling W ko1 Kinney W 4 Jackson D/No Dec 61 McCaffreyW4 Kilrain W 6 Campbell D10 Choynski W 4 Choynski Wko27 Choynski NC4 McDonald D8 Smith WKO2 COLLATED IN THE BOXING REGISTER OF THE IBHOF
Strangly enough he got the better of Joe lannon over three rounds on the same show that he defeated Caffrey and Spillings. The Jackson fight was not a draw, it was No Contest.
