Based Soley On Resume Who Ranks Higher Holyfield Or Corbett?

Do we need standout wins as such?

If we are comparing him to the weaker lineal champions, then it is enough just to beat a row of contenders.

 

Choynski, Killrain, McCaffrey.

I think that these were still significant wins at the time.

Obviously his choice was between rounding up Sullivan’s road kill, and taking on the new up and coming contenders.

He did a bit of both.

 

Holyfield has the better resume, but if you take away his PED's who knows.

Relative to their peak in their day You could argue Corbett.

 

Corbett did fight Jackson when few others would but the circumstances of the fight seem fishy ... Jackson may have been injured .. he fought anyway .. Corbett fought his distance survival fight and that is not so engaging to me as if it were a twenty round scheduled bout where one could not run forever .. that one is a question mark to me but he did fight him ..

 

Jackson fell off a wagon and hurt an ankle, but it was two weeks before the fight, and detailed round by round reports mention his mobility was not an issue. Judging solely by the round by round details I have read, Corbett won more rounds, but Jackson would a few rounds by a larger margin. Things slowed down around round 25.


How good was Peter Jackson? He beat better competition than John L Sullivan, and George Siler, the most famous thrid man in the ring of the time said he was better than Jack Johnson to quote him, by long odds.


Peter Jackson was 29 for the Corbett fight, in his absolute prime. Even a draw here verifies Corbett's greatness.


IMO, Jackson would have beaten Sullivan. He had the speed, and skills edge hard enough to stop almost anyone in the timeline

 

Goddard was a very good fighter, worthy of the hall of fame if he isn't in there already. The fight was only 8 rounds, and Jackson floored him twice and was himself floored just one. Under modern scoring, Jackson likely wins here.

Most of those Jackson Dooley fights were short. How long was this one? If it was only 4-6 rounds a fight report is needed. My guess is Jackson had the better. Dooley was the champion of Australia, hardly a pushover. Draws back then were common, particularly in shorter fighter.

IMO, Slavin was better than either Goddard or Dooley, and Jackson KO'd him post Corbett in a high-stakes fight in London.

And I see you have no mention of Siler's opinion, who was the 3rd man in the ring for both Jackson and Johnson. Siler said Jackson was easily the better.

 

Well, he was probably or almost certainly the #1 man for a while, a genuine champion.
But perhaps that is true of Corbett too?

 

This might or might not be relevant.

In those days a draw sometimes just meant that nobody was knocked out.

Not all draws carried the same weight.

 

Kilrain had 47 gloved bouts that we know of, and when Corbett beat him he had not lost since his figth with

Sullivan, which had been to decide who the unified champion was.

I think that we have to credit this as being an important win.

McCaffrey had lost to the Nonpareil, and the Nonpareil had been discussed as a possible opponent for Sullivan based on this.

The Falon win would have put him back on the map, so I think we can give some credit here.

Choynski was six months past his professional debut when he met Corbett, but the amount of publicity that the fight attracted, makes me wonder if there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

Why LOL?

Dooley also beat Fitzsimmons, possibly twice (admittedly in 4 rounders). He was an ATG!
Goddard was also one of the top contenders for quite a while. Jackson hadnt trained for the Goddard fight, but Goddard still managed to knock him down and earn a draw. He was a top fighter of the time. Goddard v Corbett would have actually been a great fight. I pick Corbett, but Goddard has a decent chance.