book review: in the ring with james j. corbett

I finally got done reading the second book in adam pollack's series on the heavyweight champions, 'in the ring with james j. corbett' and here's my analysis.

for those who bought the pollack book on john l. sullivan, the second book in the series basically follows the same format. it's a heavily researched book on corbetts career, using local primary (newspaper) sources, along with a abundance of secondary ( books, etc) sources to try and paint a picture of corbetts career in the ring, with discussions of his bouts, his career out of the ring with potential matchups with other fighters, his evolving style and so on and so forth. for serious historians it's a must have for his evolution of a fighter, it has reports on his fights, his career as the professor of the olympic boxing club, his machinations to angle into the heavyweight title fight with the aged (and very vulnerable) sullivan, and for what it is, it's very enjoyable.

however there seems to be issues with the evolving series on these fighters, and that's mr pollack does not include much in the way of corbett's career after he loses the title. with sullivan who was undefeated until he lost the championship, the fact his title loss wasn't discussed in detail seemed like a minor blip on a otherwise magnificent volume, one I've already read six times at least. it was a issue of a clear ending for sullivan, losing the title, but with corbett, who had several high profile fights and title challenges, it left me feeling incomplete. mr. pollack asserts that those post championship fights will be covered in later books, and I understand it's a series but it makes no sense to me to have a wonderful career fightography turn flat at the end, as the skimming over of corbett's fights with tom sharkey the 2nd and kid mccoy leaves me with questions. he asserts the mccoy fight wasn't a fix, as those in the know at the time didn't think it was, but with no details on the fight I was hoping that he would clarify this with his usual thoroughness, the same with the sharkey fight where a member of corbett's camp jumped in the ring causing a dq. it leaves me wondering what his strategy is in breaking down the career of bob fitzsimmons, who had multiple weight career, and who after losing the title and competing in the heavyweight class 'dropped' down in weight and fought at 'light' heavyweight, and who also was one of the first heavy champs who fought long past his best, and how the author will report on his post championship career. I don't believe it would have been redundant to include all of corbett's career, even if the same fights would have been covered in later books, to me it leaves me with a doubt when asked 'which is the best book on corbett' because pre championship this book is a must, but post championship career, it leaves something to be desired.

in summary, if you appreciate exhaustive research, and factual conclusions on a fighters career based on live reporting, this book is definitely on a short list of must have's, but I don't get the sense it's as 'complete' as sullivan's book.

 

I can understand your dilema, adam. at the length the books are to be up to your high standards, eventually there probably has to be some sort of cutoff. I hope I didn't convey I didn't like the book, I do like it and reading the sullivan then corbett book I got the sense of a story being left off, then picked up with a different title character.

and what you've said hits it on the head, you leave us wanting to know more and waiting for the next book. you're a big tease adam, admit it.

and for some strange reason, I keep reading and re reading the sullivan book, it really makes you wonder if he was a 'once n a century' man who COULD have fought today's heavyweights, obviously using a more modern style but with his physical skills.