Discuss CONTEMPORARY (i.e, May 1900) accounts of Jeffries-Corbett I

The Democrat stated that Corbett outclassed Jeffries and made him look a novice . So did the Eagle . William Brady ,Jeffries manager said he told Jeffries in between the 20th and 21st rounds that he had to ko Corbett or lose his title.He threw Ryan out of the corner and told Jeffries to throw everything at Corbett.
The Herald said Corbett made Jeffries look like a lumbering amateur.

 

The Daily true American and the NY Times have Jeffries slightly in the lead if you score the rounds the way they called them prior to the KO.

If you score the fights on a 10 point must system on either paper, Jeffries lead becomes a little larger as he scored a knock down prior to the 10 count KO.

There is a myth sometimes reported in books that Corbett was out in front. This is not true on any detailed round by round report I have read.

What is true is Corbett’s own people consider this his best ring effort.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...favorite&hl=en

 

If you balance out the various reports without favour to either fighter, then the picture that emerges is that Corbett swept the first 15 rounds, and Jeffries took over from there.

 

That would give Jeffries 8 rds out of 23 we have done this before but when I've asked Mendoza to provide contemporary evidence that Jeffries was in front that the time of the stoppage he has always failed to do so.There is a plethora of contemporary papers that state unequivocably that Corbett was in front at the time of the finish .
Guilalah has provided three in this thread alone.

Here's another from the San Francisco Call.

"Corbett completely outclassed Jeffries"

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19000521.2.86



Mendoza is in denial because he needs to boost Jeffries and his victory over a past prime ex champion who was coming out of a 2 years retirement and had not won a fight in 6 years, and that one over a 165lbs former bareknuckle fighter.


We have the ringside reports of the time and Jeffries own manager's testimony ,we need no more. Below Corbett in the early1900's

This content is protected

 

Janitor, did you read the round by round reports? Corbett did not sweep the first 15 rounds. Like I said before, if you read a detailed round by round report, Jeffries is even or slightly in the lead prior to the KO.

 

Your so full of it, sometimes I wonder if you were ever a circus Roustabout. For openers, Corbett was a top level fighter in great shape for the match.

Secondly Corbett was not coming off a 2 year retirement. Math is not your strong suit, so I'll help you. It was a year and a half. After the defeat Corbett proved he wasn't washed up by beating a very good Kid McCoy.

Read the report sometime, Corbett vs McCoy was a hotly contested fight.

 

Iv'e read and posted the round by round scorecards on this very thread. CORBETT WAS IN FRONT.

You make a thread, get crucified by primary evidence to the contrary, dissapear then come back make no reference to your last debacle ,make another unsupported thread , get crucified again dissapear etc.

It's a perpetual GROUND HOG DAY!atsch

Kid McCoy went into the tank .

Charles "Kid" McCoy New York, NY KO 5
-It seems certain that McCoy faked the knockout
loss to win bets

Here is Corbett's managers version of the Corbett v McCoy fight he stated in print it was a fake.
It's dated 3rd of Nov 1900 and as such is a primary source
http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19001103.2.45.14
Ok ? Groundhog?


Fact is Corbett had not won a fight in 6 years when he,

"outclassed Jeffries in every facet,

"made him look a raw novice",

"made him look like a lumbering amateur".

These are next day direct quotes from ringside newspaper reports.

Dont tell me, "the Earth is flat".:rofl

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

On the Kid McCoy fight, I keep an open mind.

 

I want to see a contemporary paper that had Jeffries ahead at the time of the stoppage, SO FAR NO ONE HAS PRODUCED ONE.
Every paper I have seen had him trailing on the scorecards and his own manager agreed.

Until I see concrete evidence to the contrary I'm calling the alternative argument;

AGENDA DRIVEN BULL****!

 

I think I offer something like eight different New York sources in describing this bout and the perspectives on a likely decision at various points or had it gone the distance. The fact is, there was no score to this bout because it ended on a knockout. It didn't go the distance. Even if it had, and Corbett rose in the 23rd round and continued, there is no telling how much damage Jeffries would have done the rest of the way. Jeffries was expert at pacing himself such that he could come on strong as the bout progressed. That served him well with the Sharkey decision, and likely would have done so here, given that Corbett was tired and hurt late in the fight. Back then, the damage inflicted and how one finished a fight counted more than how many rounds one had won.

It should also be noted that Jeffries started to come on as of the 17th round, winning that round as well as all of the rounds thereafter. Jeff dropped Corbett in the 19th round. He kept landing effective blows and wearing Jim down until he caught up with him in the 23rd with a devastating true knockout.

Check out In the Ring With James J. Jeffries, pages 363-398 for the bout discussion and post-fight analysis. I don't make anything up - it is all from contemporary sources, mostly local.

 

Sometimes I wonder if your agenda driven mind can't count or accept data of a paper who scored it round by round. I have said Jeffries was even or slightly in the lead before Corbett was counted out. Multiple sources say the same thing!

If Corbett was only give 7-8 rounds, Jeffries had 8 round + a knockdown, and the rest of the rounds were even, how would you score it?

If that's not good enough for you, see what Adam said. It’s clear as day your belief that Corbett was well in front has been debunked. The more you type on this matter the more ashamed you should be.


PS: Prove to me that Corbett vs. McCoy was fake. There is a lot of BS out there in terms of quotes. We know this. If you read the round by round without an agenda ( difficult for you ) these two went at each other hard.