Fascinating:Corbett on Peter Jackson v Jack Johnson and who would you pick?

Johnson's style is very effective and maybe 'clever'. HE uses little energy but manages to stay out of range of his opponents attacks and doesn't get hit. On the inside he leans on opponents and twists their arms to wear them out. On the inside he holds and throws big uppercuts, a very effective. So he's gradually winning the fight and breaking his opponent down while not sapping his energy resources. When you bear in mind some of his fights, like the Flynn fight were scheduled for many many rounds, this is the perfect strategy

Technically he breaks many rules of modern textbook boxing but it works for him against his opposition and in his time

 

He might be saying that Johnson did not box by the "textbook" (the early 1900's textbook anyway) and thus wasn't as skilled as Jackson whom he describes as a "machine".

Johnson obviously had a very unique style that was highly effective. I believe that he was creative, innovative and clever too, he had to have been. But you could argue that the way he boxed may not have been so effective for a different person with different physical characteristics. Perhaps Jackson's style was all about learned skill and technique, which puts him above Jack Johnson in cleverness according to Corbett's estimations.

 

You have to bear in mind this maybe a bit of 'I fought him, so therefore he's better'

 

Peter Jackson and Jack Johnson were both better than James Jeffries in my opinion

 

Plausible.

 

George Siler the great referee saw both from close up, he said Jackson had the edge in power, but there was nothing to choose in science between them, he thought Jackson the superior fighter to not only Johnson, but Corbett and Fitz.
Corbett in his dotage ,called Johnson the" Emperor of Fistiana"

and Johnson told Fleischer," Nat that's the nicest thing anyone ever said about me". But in earlier years Jim could never bring himself to give him any credit ,Johnson was allways complimentary towards both him and Jeffries ,but then I think he showed more class than either as far as that goes. I rate Johnson over all those you listed, but you probably guessed that.Sooner watch Dempsey though!

 

Interesting comments. In his autobiography The Roar of the Crowd, Corbett is not very generous in his praise for the abilities of most of his heavyweight champion successors. Jackson apprears to be the boxer that he praises highest. As of 1925 he says that Peter Jackson may well have been the greatest fighter of them all. It strikes me odd that he would describe Johnson as awkward rather than clever - most descriptions I've seen of Johnson are the other way around. Despite his "Gentleman Jim" nickname, Corbett had an ego that was up there with the best of them - perhaps he saw Johnson's cleverness as a threat to his own???

 

I tend to think of Jackson as something of an Ali but with Black Dynamite-style execution... Mobile and elusive with accurate and educated straight punching, but with more explosive delivery. I tend to think his movement, feints, and straight punches would give Johnson hell.

I think i'd favor him if only because it would be a fencing match. And I don't think I've seen Johnson dominate a top class opponent in that sense.

 

Hard to say. I think Jackson hit a little harder, was a tad quicker on his feet, and had better out fighting skills. I never read anything about Jackson taking the easy way out, but I have read Johnson coasting or quitting.

Johnson was stronger, a better in-fighter, and a better clincher. Neither fighter had a good enough chin to rule out a come from behind type of KO. But style wise here Jackson could box well, and Johnson defense's on print had trouble with the likes of a pillow fisted O'Brien's jab. I would go with Jackson on points but its really hard to say.