Feb 1890 James Corbett vs Old Chocolate George Godfrey

IMO whether it's a finish fight or a 20-25 rounder Godfrey comes out on top in the end. He's just all wrong for Corbett he'd wear him down especially after the 10th round. We're talking about a guy in Corbett who had very little killer instinct, had trouble with swarmers, and has a worse resume than Godfrey by far.

 

I am not qualified to say who is correct on this thread, but appreciate your guidance on my Greb/Langford/Fitz/Sullivan/Corbett round robin + take on all similar size comers thread!

I just want to point out that the expression is "smoke & mirrors".
Describing using same to deceive!

 

Nice analysis given that we have so little in the way of facts to go on.

 

What's really sad is that you're still so butthurt over the ass whooping I gave you in the Killen-Sullivan thread, that you're stalking my posts from months to years ago, and on almost a weekly basis even after you scurried away like a rat after my sourced rebuttal.

The saddest part of it all is your bizarre schizoid need for Godfrey to be something he wasn't; a top level guy. You try to cop out by bringing up Dixon as if he wasn't still universally seen as the best fighter of the time by both racists and non-racists. The same thing applies to other black fighters from the period like Gans and Jackson; racism didn't stop the overwhelming majority of those in the fight game, regardless of prejudice, from seeing them as the best (or at least one of the best) fighter (s) at the time. Just admit you can't find contemporaries who viewed Godfrey the same way instead of debating like a little b!tch and deflecting on every comment of mine you bump.

As usual you resort to the usual disparaging of sources when they don't go your way like a child, the sources from San Francisco are literally hometown first hand sources of the event, and you act like the fact the sole fact that they're from San Francisco takes away from the fact that multiple sources confirming that Corbett was throwing and holding his own before the ankle injury started taking effect which historical boxing society tried claiming didn't happen and believed Godfrey gave Jackson the harder fight, which is why the sources were brought in the first place you ****. If you feel as strongly as he does about that, could you confirm multiple different first hand sources from different regions that had journalists there first hand who felt that Corbett only ran until Jackson's ankle swelled? Do you unironically think that multiple differing sources fabricated Corbett's early success?

Let's assume your cope about Jackson just being a bad style matchup for Godfrey is true; what else has Godfrey done in his career to be considered even close to being top level? Was it his win over the Charles Hadley? Losing to both a green Kilrain and an aging Kilrain who himself was long considered to be far inferior to Jackson even by the most staunch of racists? Kilrain wasn't exactly a boxing savant either so what style mismatch are you referring to here? Can all offensive swarmers just not handle a fading old guy or a green fighter with mediocre power? You sound like a tiktoker with these "skill breakdowns" lol it's embarrassing. And yeah I'm sure Jackson, the best technician of the most developed talent pool on earth in Australia, just never stepped in the same ring as someone who was a highly defensive mover which America and Britain had quite a few of. Sure, Corbett may have been the best version of this type of fighter that Jackson's faced but to paint him as unfamiliar with the style entirely is just as dishonest and weaselly as the rest of your posts. His greatest feat is beating Denver Ed Smith who also went on to lose almost every fight he had after getting dropped multiple times by Jackson and against horrid competition, and even that has an asterisk tied to it as according to a report I've read "the outcome may have been different" had he not been concussed by the brick wall next to the ring. Brick wall or no brick wall, it's not enough evidence of Godfrey's legitimacy as a top level guy and people at the time think he was one either.

I have nothing against Godfrey, what I'm against is the rampant deluded revisionism displayed with regard to him. I'm not gonna let you fabricate history just because your self esteem relies on Godfrey being top level, if you don't want to be corrected and just want to continue to live in fantasy land then stop calling people out. It isn't hard

Also;

"little killer instinct"

Just because someone is cautious at certain points of a fight doesn't mean they lack killer instinct; when Corbett saw Jeffries rattled in the ninth of their first encounter and when he rattled Fitz in the sixth he pushed the pace. That's like saying Ali lacks a killer instinct because he prefers to be invasive most of the time lmao, when he planted his feet, tried to hurt you or got you hurt he did his best to get you out of there.

"has a worse resume than Godfrey by far."

LOL, even Corbett's shitty resume is still leagues above Godfrey's. That rookie version of Choynski probably beats everyone that Godfrey's beaten; just a year and a half following his defeat to Corbett Joe gave Goddard two wars. McCoy wouldn't have broken a sweat against Godfrey's wins, unless you wanna be one of those dudes that STILL believes that fight was rigged. Wouldn't be surprised if chubby Kilrain got it done either.

"had trouble with swarmers"

Based on what? Sharkey ragdolling an aging inactive man?

So Godfrey's too befuddled by the stylistic nightmare that is old and green Kilrain, say it's because of the difference in size or whatever excuse you want to come up with, yet he's gonna run through and manhandle the usually 185-190 pound Corbett who Jeffries and Fitz both hyped up the power of when Jim actually planted his feet? Your weird salt-driven obsession over me once again clouds your already shaky judgement, I get that you've never been taught to handle being wrong but throwing a month long tantrum usually isn't the way to go. Take your meds.

 

Mods ^ the guy is blatantly insulting will you keep the same energy? I haven't insulted this dude I'm just calling out his obsession and blatant trolling.
btw Nice rant champ you realize no one agrees with you

 

"Old Chocolate "?

 

Yeah George got called that later in his career

 

Anybody else coming to this thread id just ignore melankomas the dude is a known troll with serious issues. He just melts down anytime you mention George Godfrey or criticize Corbett it's sad to see. He's the new Mendoza unfortunately I won't be addressing him again

 

The timing of this fight is very interesting; any later than 1890, Corbett should win easily; earlier Godfrey probably had an even chance. The wins over Lannon(draw?) and Ashton were decent and the Ed Smith and Cardiff victories were more so. I think Godfrey's style would probably suit Corbett with his movement and jab, interesting contest at the time the OP mentioned. In my year-end recreation of Ring ratings, I had Godfrey at 4 and Corbett at 5, by 1891 year-end Corbett had climbed to 2 with George at six. I rate Corbett peak-to-peak higher.