Corbett vs Foreman. 1893, 45 rounds

Johnson pinned Jeffries arms back , frogmarched him baclwards to where Corbett was sitting and said," where do you want him Mr Corbett?"
I don't know how much more conclusive you need to be?
There is some wilful denial here which smacks of hero worship.

 

This is frankly the kind of thing that makes me think that you're dealing with a problem from weight draining or tiredness (or whatever) from Jeffries. You shouldn't be able to do that to a similar-sized, fresh, athletic guy.

If this is Jeffries at his strongest, then yeah, maybe he did just suck. The one advantage he supposedly had in his prime was strength and athleticism. Of course, it would also reflect badly on Johnson's own abilities if the #2 guy of his era, known for his supposed strength, was a pygmy.

 

Langford looks much better on film than both Jeffries and Johnson.

Corbett gets underrated IMO, I think his footwork and movement looks pretty good in the Fitz fight. Choynski also looks pretty good in the short clip we have of him:

This content is protected

 

Here's the most I've ever seen of the Johnson vs Jeffries. The quality isn't great but still, beggars can't be choosers and at least we have something. I think Johnson was a very evolved fighter. You have to look at all available fights on Johnson to appreciate the different things he could do. Johnson could in fact move his feet - we see some snippets of same and he was certainly described in the literature as displaying excellent mobility and deft footwork. But since grappling was allowed to such an extent - then, why not? Johnson was strong and knew how to use his strength.

Rather than moving and expending energy, Johnson could clutch and lock down an opponent with absolute ease. Necessity is the mother of invention and frequency of usage. If Johnson was prohibited to grapple or required to tone down same, we would've seen the greater movements he was more than capable of. As to strength, we Johnson's ability to lock down and move his opponent around wasn't as effective against the huge Willard - but that figured. What should be conversely highlighted, is that for the most part (save for a fatiguing Johnson in the very late 20 + rounds), the gigantic Willard was not able to shift Johnson - which speaks for Johnson's strength that was transcendent relative to his own size.

This content is protected

 

45 rds? This fight wouldn't last 5.
Corbett wouldn't get the chance
To wear Foreman down.
Foreman ko's Corbett with in 5rds tops.
I maybe am being generous.

 

Jeffries looks surprisingly strong in those early rounds, there are times where he appears stronger than Johnson

 

In my view Jeffries used his greater weight more than strength in the moments he was able to neutralize or push Johnson back. I think he had about 19 lbs on Jack (208 vs 227?). Otherwise, I think Jack had Jeff well beaten on actual strength - I think it's either round 1 or 2 when Johnson first bends Jeffries arm well behind his back - and Johnson does it a number of times throughout the fight. Quite startling to witness actually. Otherwise, Johnson had no problem locking Jeffries arms from the get-go.

 

This imo,is it in a nutshell.
After taking a beating for 7rds against a near 40, 2 years retired Fitz Jeffries overwhelmed Fitz.
The consensus was Jeffries won because.
1.He was 12 years the younger man.
2.He was 47lbs the heavier man.
When faced with an opponent whom he had neither of those advantages over ,one who possessed more science than himself,he came up short.
Jeffries was a great fighter ,strong, durable as hell , with a big punch , because of those attributes he was able to overcome the smaller, older opposition of his day.That's my perception of him.

 

IMO, if Johnson could have bent Jeffries's arms around his back by sheer brute strength at Jeff's best, I have doubts that Jeffries was all that strong. That's even if we grant that Johnson was quite an athlete by the standards of his day. What we're left with is a vision of Jeffries as a weak, skill-less lump who absorbed punishment until his adversaries fell over. This doesn't reflect well on any of the other heavies of the era.

 

I'm fairly certain that is the starting point for the thread ... could Corbett run like he did in 1891 till Foreman was exhausted ... for starters his only hope is a huge ring and a ref that allows it and then who knows ...

 

Well Tyson would last more than 30 seconds

 

In your 50s? I could swear you weren't a day over 19

 

You make his opponents sound worse than they really are

 

If Holyfield could beat Foreman then Corbett does the unthinkable to Foreman