Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

I don't see the logic of scoring the round even and then saying the 30 light jabs (which is all he did) did not cancel out the knockdown and near knockout.

"Those quotes aren't made in regards to fights where the loser landed 3x as many punches as the other guy."

He didn't say how many more light punches are needed to cancel out heavy ones, but his quote #3 & #4 heads in that direction. What we know is you say 3 light punches cancel 1 heavy punch in your scoring.

I didn't think it necessary to actually quote Seekins' example, but apparently it is, so--

"Consider a round where fighter A is a classic stick-and-move boxer and fighter B is a come forward fighter. For most of the round, fighter A has a lot of success staying behind his jab and using lateral movement to avoid punishment while racking up minor scoring with the lead jab.

"Then with about 45 seconds left in the round, fighter B manages to walk fighter A into the corner and drill him with a hook to the body/uppercut to the jaw combination. Fighter A survives the round but is rocked. Fighter B drops in a couple more brutal mid-range hooks upstairs on fighter A as the round is coming to a close.

"Fighter A could have a much higher total of punches landed for the round, but the advantage in power shots,and a proper evaluation of what happened in the ring, makes it clear the round belonged to fighter B."

*So Seekins in his example has B winning with 4 punches with A probably landing many more than 3 times that number.

**Now you might rebut with you score on quantity and not quality, but the question for the historian is if that is how they would have scored it in 1900? Seekins gives a lucid summation of why many, and I think most, score on quality more than quantity. Anyone I guess has the right to disagree, but not to the degree of imposing on the past scoring systems they wouldn't have been used and which were not what the boxers of the time expected.

 

Your scoring is your scoring. Like I said, it is not mine.

"How do you know that every punch Corbett threw was light and every punch that Jeffries threw was heavy?"

Not all the punches Corbett threw were light, off the newspapers. But apparently a high percentage were. As for Jeffries, watching the brief film we have of him against Ruhlin, and of what we can see against Sharkey, he was not one for jabbing or light punching. Against Ruhlin he seems to be trying to drive that left hook right through Ruhlin's body.
I think off the newspaper reports we can assume that Jeff was throwing the heavier punches.

 

But usually punches thrown by a moving or retreating fighter aren't as heavy as those of a flat-footed plodder like Jeffries who really sets down on his punches. No doubt though that Corbett landed some serious punches along with the flicking jabs, but I think it was the jabs which gave him the wide punch stat lead.

I am surprised that you didn't note that The Call focusing on punch totals indicate the dispute over quantity versus quality of punches was already heating up in 1900.

 

How do we know they were "fancy pitty- pat jabs"? I'm not drawing my conclusion from this report I drew mine from the multiple sources Pollack quoted and contemporary news reports that I found on line myself. The referee Charley White stated that Jeffries had an up hill battle all the way.
I think it's beyond doubt that Corbett built up a big early lead and began to tire around the 17th round .
We know that between the 18th and 19th rds Brady climbed up on the ring apron and ordered Tommy Ryan to get out of the corner,we know that Ryan threatened to "slug him",we know that Brady said," I'm his manager and if you don't get out of the corner then the two policeman behind me will club you down".
We know Ryan then climbed down and that Brady took his place ,saying to Jeffries," you have got to force the pace and score a ko because if you don't you will lose your title".If the fight was close at that point why would Brady have taken such an action? Its all in Pollack's book and Brady's autobiography.

 

Ali knocked down and knocked out guys whilst he was on the back foot ,you are constructing a scenario without any proof,just a presumption.
Corbett staggered Jeffries in the 9th round.


Pitty-pat? Jeffries is described as being bruised and cut up,he had"an ugly cut just above the right eye.Below the eye was swollen and discoloured ,his nose was scratched and his lip cut"
Fitzsimmons sitting ringside said Corbett had made the "fatal mistake of over confidence,he is down and out he should have won.The cart-horse wears the smile again".

 

Bob Fitzsimmons said Corbett should have won but made the mistake of getting overconfident.

 

"If the fight was close at that point why would Brady have taken such an action?"

Because the fight was close. Anyway, nearly every source I am familiar with had Corbett ahead going into the 19th and by a significant but not insurmountable margin. Jeff had to come on and he did and was closing in by the end. Brady knew it was prudent to assume the worst to spur Jeff along. It was time to light a fire under Jeffries.

Adam Pollack in a separate thread I quoted from in Post 713 implies that he thinks Jeff winning the decision was in play by the end, and even the likely result.

 

"Ali knocked down and knocked out guys whilst he was on the back foot,"

And so Corbett could?

"Pitty-pat"

yeah, I'm laying it on strong like you are doing in this thread. But the newspaper accounts do indicate that Corbett relied on jabbing and moving most of the time. You are right that he seems to have set down on punches now and then and hurt Jeff in the 9th. But overall it seems clear Jeff was landing the harder punches.

The reason for this discussion is you and DW claiming the punch stat totals printed in the SF Call "prove" Corbett was winning easily. That just isn't true,

at least for everyone. But different folks do score on different criteria.

Fitz is an interested but not necessarily unbiased observer. As he had licked Corbett in his big win, it was in his interest to see Corbett besting Jeffries in technique and exposing Jeff's vulnerabilities even in a loss. If Corbett did better than Fitz against Jeff, Fitz could make the argument that his loss to Jeff was just a fluky off night.

 

Well, I'm drawing my conclusion from the multiple primary sources saying Corbett's punches were light and lacked the power to slow up Jeffries. And also on the limited surviving film of Corbett, and also of Jeffries.

Whatever is claimed, Corbett was certainly not throwing power jabs of the Liston variety. As for Jeff, there is no reason to think he wouldn't have been slamming that left to the body like he did against Ruhlin.

 

Corbett was ahead on points going into the late rounds, so landing more punches did matter, but he clearly was fading with Jeffries' heavy punches sapping his strength most likely playing a central role in that.

"novice"

Well, over the top newspaper wordings should be kept in perspective. Reporters are trying to tell a story and make it dramatic. While Corbett was the cleverer and better boxer, the story of the fight overall hardly shows Jeff as a novice. He was coming on.

It is hard to see a heavyweight champion who retired undefeated and didn't lose until he was 35 as a novice. He clearly had enough skill to get to and stay at the top. That said, he obviously wasn't as skilled as the best fighters around, but was skilled enough to augment his strength and toughness to reach a formidable level of ability.

 

I don't know how much boxing you have done ,but even light jabs tend to start to sting after a while especially if the guy throwing them is landing with monotonous regularity.