1892 heavyweights v 1982 heavyweights

Maybe the crude drunk cow boy could lose

 

Not an entirely fair comparison.

You are taking the two men who contested the title in one year, and matching them against all of the most dangerous heavyweights over a decade.

If you want to match up the eras, then throw in all of the dangerous heavyweights from the 1890s.

If you want to match the fighters, then pit them against Holmes and Spinks, when the title changed hands.

 

So to be fair, you have matched a prime Corbett and a shot Sullivan, against all of these contenders as they were in 1982?

Fair enough.

Better bring up the end of year rankings for 1982 then.

 

Man, look at all those 1982 fighters who never fought one another!
Where's Oprah?
You get a belt and you get a belt and you get a belt..

 

As they were in 1982?

 

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

interesting in theory but its largely about environ - fighters will dominate in their own eras versus fighters from another, like ability for like.

 

Let’s start by looking at what I have got to work with:

A prime Jim Corbett, and a dilapidated alcoholic Sullivan.

Now Sullivan is very ready to be taken at this point, and he would likely lose to most of the men on that list, though he would still be dangerous to those who lacked durability.

Corbett could potentially outbox any of those men, but he would likely lose to some of them. The pressure fighters could take his game away, and the punchers might catch up with him eventually.

Holmes would likely be too much for him, but he would probably be the #1 contender at some point.

I would add that you have not given me the best and brightest of the era to work with.

I would love to have a prime Sullivan, or Peter Jackson, or Bob Fitzsimmons, or Jim Jeffries.

 

These selections all seem a bit arbitrary to me.

Surely if there is were to be a time machine challenge, each side would put up the three biggest names.

That Means we see:

Larry Holmes vs Jim Corbett
Peter Jackson vs Trevor Berbick (fresh off the ali win and no 1 contender from memory)
John L Sullivan vs Muhammed Ali - Probably the biggest money spinner of all the three fights. Ali had just drawn with Berbick, a month or so earlier.

All good fights, but I would lean towards Jackson and Sullivan getting the job done (2-1) for 1892.

 

I think you are selling Corbett very far short here, even allowing for his limitations.

Looking at the best footage of him, it is apparent that he was a very unorthodox fighter, and a whole mass of feints.

He was like a snake, and no part of his body was still at any one time.

He seems to have made a fool of pretty much everybody.

His main limitation was that a determined puncher, who was prepared to play the long game, could get him eventually.

Also, if a pressure fighter really went hell for leather, his elegant dance started to fall apart.