Jim Corbett walked to a 61 rds No Contest with Peter Jackson in May 1891. Corbett beat up a fat ,washed up , 4.5years inactive Sullivan to take his crown in September 1892. If Corbett had re- matched Jackson in his first defence[Jan1893] instead of defending against little Charley Mitchell,who would have won?
A lot of reports have Peter Jackson as past prime for the Corbett fight. Peter did still go on to have some good wins after this, but if it is true, then given that Corbett had to improve with every fight and you would expect a past prime fighter to decline ever so slightly, then it does tend to suggest an advantage to corbett.
That is correct ,as he realised he was never going to get the title shot he richly deserved he stopped training with any great zeal,similar to what I am reading about Langford in Clay Moyle's excellent bio of Sam.Maybe if he had known Corbett was prepared to defend against him instead of prevaricating and insisting it was in the South ,Jackson may have found renewed interest in the game, and uncovered one last great performance?
jackson was confident in his own ability and maintained that he was in good shape and ready to go during thid time, despite what he said was inaccuarate representations by the papers (in private letters to his friends). If taking a guess, i think that Jackson would have beat Corbett but being honest, i base it on nothing. There is lots of talk about no Greb footage, but wouldnt it have been great to see Jackson on Film. Technically, Jeffries and Jeffords fights (sad as they were) occurred late enough. And with Jackson so desperate for money, it is hard to believe no one saw value in sneaking a sparring session with jackson on to film. Even a bag session like John l sullivan had would have been great.
