A Re-assessment Of Gentleman Jim Corbett

The records are all over the place for those old timers.

For example, in 1897, on one day, March 12, it says Corbett fought a one-round exhibition with Jim Jeffries, then one round with Billy Woods, then one round with Joe Corbett, then one round with Jim Jeffries again, then one round with Billy Woods again, then one round with Joe Corbett again ... before finally going yet another one round with Jim Jeffries, one round with Billy Woods, and one round with Joe Corbett ... and then engaging in a "wrestling match" Jim McVey for one round.

Those are all listed separately and are considered 10 separate meetings in one day. And he'd do it again the next day with the same guys.

But they weren't real bouts. They were sparring sessions. He sparred with three different guy for three rounds.

On another day, he sparred with a guy for four rounds. They said they were short rounds with long rest periods in between. And when his opponent had enough after four, it was listed as a "win."

Floyd Mayweather sparred with NINE guys in training for Pacquiao (including Adrien Broner). Should we count each sparring session with each guy as an actual fight?

I'd love to see these modern fighters' records if we logged every sparring session in a training camp as an "exhibition" or a "no-decision four-rounder" like they did with many of these older guys.

If so, Mayweather would've logged about 50 pro fights a week leading up to his fight with Manny. Instead of two fights a year, if we included all his sparring sessions as no-decisions, he'd have 162 fights a year. 160 being no-decisions. (Unless he stopped a guy or a trainer pulled their young fighter out, in which case Floyd would get a TKO "win.")

Over 20 years, instead of 49-0. he'd Mayweather would've been closer to 2,049-0 with about 2,000 no-decisions.

 

Perry wrote, "With Corbett we cannot be sure of many opponents records. ATG fighters would be excellent in any era once given time to adjust. Being an ATG means more than obvious boxing skill although Corbett had this in droves. What makes a great fighter are intrinsic attributes such as heart, will to win, conditioning. These are not readily seen watching herky jerky pre silient film action."

You claim Corbett had "boxing skill" and "in droves." Then you admit that from watching Corbett on "herky jerky" video that skills are not "readily seen." So if you can't see his skills while watching video, what makes you think Corbett was skilled? This doesn't look like a skilled fighter to me, and I don't think the video is to blame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpDhbpmtpvo

For me, I'll go by the video over what some sports writer wrote over 100 years ago. From video, Kimbo looks like a more skilled boxer than Corbett.

This video is not good either, and it is over 20 years old, but the skills are obvious. A fighter with this type skill could be filmed using the old cameras and he'd still look skilled because he is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxHG2kYJLrY

 

Why keep posting the Corbett-Courtney film ?
That was just two guys playing around for the camera, a new invention back then.

 

I don't know.

If Corbett beat a few guys who were as sh!t as Kimbo Slice, that's not surprising. Most HW champs fought a few tomato cans.
I don't think Jake Kilrain can be classed in Kimbo's class though. The man fought for a couple of hours with Joh L Sullivan if I remember rightly ? And Kilrain had 20 recorded Queensberry bouts before facing Corbett too.
Dominic McCaffrey I know less of.

Anyway, I've never rated Corbett highly. So I possibly agree with your point to some extent.
I always rated Fitzsimmons above Corbett at heavyweight. Corbett's best results may be his 23 round loss to Jeffries. But then Jeffries was probably grossly overrated too !

 

The late streetbrawler Kimbo had more refined boxing skills than Corbett. Corbett bares no resemblance to any modern day professional. He looks absolutely terrible on film. No footwork, his defense consists entirely of him picking off shots with his gloves and delivery of punches is so crude it looks like something you'd see from a 3 stooges slapstick skit. I saw a technique showreel with him and Tunney where he showed off his "deadly uppercut" in slow motion. It was perhaps the worst demonstration of a punch ever captured on film.

 

Kimbo Slice was never a hwt boxing contender. He was never rated.....ever.

Jim Corbett was hwt champion of the world and rated for many decades as one of hwt boxings ATG fighters.

Huge difference here. One had supreme accomplishments as a fighter while the other accomplished absolutely nothing.

Corbetts meat was making brawlers look like fools.

In terms of watching herky jerky films absolutely skills are not as readily apparent. Especially to those like you who have no idea what they are looking at. As one example a poster a few months ago posted a brief film clip showing Dempsey slipping seven consecutive jabs by Tunney. It was a revelation to many on here. I've known this since 1973.....no surprises here.

However you need to know what you are looking at and looking for in order to clearly see skills from these fighters where only silient era film remain. Fluidity is replaced by stutter step jerky movements as if every third frame has been removed.

 

Perry, "Fludiity" is not the problem, Corbett has NO boxing skills. Foremanjab nailed it, Corbett's "boxing" looks like a three Stooges slapstick skit. Kimbo Slice is a master boxer by comparison, and as I've mentioned before, in today's era, Kimbo was barely a 4 round fighter. The Corbett that we can see on video wouldn't be ready for a sub-novice amateur fight today.

 

Thanks, Double. There are some names on there I've never heard of.
That record review is 10 times better than what's on Box Rec.

 

What video ?

 

I don’t think that Sullivan was in his prime for the McCaffrey fight, because he was well in the grip of the black bottle by then, but not to digress.

What I find interesting is that some newspapers had Jack Burke beating Jim Corbett.

Why did Burke succeed on the cards against a young Corbett, where Fitzsimmons, Jeffries and McCoy failed against an older one?

He was not a pressure fighter like Tom Sharkey, or a big puncher like Choynski.

He seems to have been a clever boxer by the vocabulary of the era, and he was smaller than Corbett.

When you put all of this together, it seems inescapable that he must have had boxing skills that would have worked in the Jeffries era.

 

Or maybe that Corbett and the other titans of the time just weren't really all that great?

 

Well if you want to be viewed as fair-minded without double standards, Jack Johnson was KO'd by a super middle ( Choynski ), out boxed according to primary sources by another in a fight ruled a draw ( O'Brien ) , and floored by a third ( Ketchel ):deal

I would say Corbett's win over Sullivan means something, and does his draw with a prime Peter Jackson. He also defeated Choysnki, and un-defeated Jake Kilrain ( Who gave Sullivan a tough battle ), and Ko'd Mitchell quickly who went many rounds with Sullivan. All of these people are hall of fame boxers.

The win over Kid McCoy if you read a round by round report is very good.

So know you know, but you won't be honest in comparison or remember the facts! No worries, I'm here to remind.

PS: Mr. McRacists is about out of white heavies to belittle. Might John L Sullivan be next?

PPS: I did not see your two questions for you on the Johnson v Langford thread. Post them here and I answer them. Johnson ducked Langford clearly. Langford was 156 pounds, and about 20 years old. Big deal.