Jake Kilrain compares eras, 1931

I didn't say he won 1 round but he was handidly outpointed and that round is what got him the draw. I don't have access to the source right now but it was somewhere in the 20s, 23rd or 25th. Just that was the last round that was really competed. But from that source you were able to infer that Jackson would have otherwise handidly won and there weren't enough rounds Corbett had a case to win. I did do a detailed breakdown on a prior post(like 6 months to a year ago?) when I had access to it.

 

Excellent stuff. Kilrain may fall into the usual tropes of old fighters comparing their era to the current era however, his analytical eye is keen. He makes great observations, he could see that Schmeling and Sharkey were the two best heavies around - they were. He also noted Schmeling would do better with more experience - something that was true in the rematch. He also went against the grain of the era and complimented Carnera calling him fast, and I believe while Carnera wasn’t great, he certainly wasn’t the Ambling Alp the press stuck on him. He moves well for a man his size and in that era.
In short Kilrain sounds like he would have made a good coach.

 

Yes and Ed Smith and Fitz were not on the heavyweight radar at that time, Sullivan chose Corbett over Slavin but as with Goddard John L was basically retired from 1889 onwards until he lost to Corbett. McAuliffe was nothing and would never have faced Sullivan but fights with Goddard and Slavin would have answered a lot about Sullivan even if he was greatly dissipated by the time they arrived. In the early days of his reign it was common for contenders to challenge everybody to a fight, "barr Sullivan".

 

That is the ultimate compliment.

It was at least once extended to Jeffries.

 

there are a few similar commentaries in the Ring Magazines in the 30s & 40s stating similar things,

the 'Letters' Section surprised me the most because there are a lot of such tales & statements, and 'why not', many of the readers would have witnessed a great many battles & fighters who were tough & hardy men. Great sentiments, youthful experiences and in many a case accurate & grounded facts.

but yeah there are a good few articles.

 

I think this is it. I wrote this on 10/27/24 on "Who got the better of the Corbett-Peter Jackson draw"

"Per the account on boxing rec Peter Jackson probably wins a decision if this fight had went to one. Jackson had a majority of the eventful rounds but Corbett had the single best round of the fight in the 25th when he broke Jacksons ribs effectively ending the fight as a contest.

If Jackson won the first 6, Corbett won the 25th and the remaining 18 were debatable there is a mathematical path for Corbett here. But Jackson most likely won if a decision was given by this time.

The account notes that Corbett was in worse shape by the 25th and was in bad enough shape by the 26th that he was unable to take advantage of Jacksons injury. So it seems very unlikely Corbett ran up the margin needed in rounds 7-24 to catch Jackson. Maybe Corbett was unaware of Jacksons injury but he had 35 more rounds to go after Jackson if he was capable."

Me in the present.

So basically in short Corbett needed to go +6 over 18 rounds you could give to either fighter. A 2-1 advantage when he'd be lucky win a majority of those 18. Per the excerpt from the Salem Daily News available on the boxing rec wiki(not the actual breakdown which is linked on the page) "From the sixth to the twenty-fifth the men fought fairly well, honors being easy, with Jackson showing less distress than Corbett." Thats the opinion of one guy but Corbetts path to being ahead after 25 is winning 2/3s of those rounds. If Corbett did run up that margin thats probably a robbery.

Your claim that Corbett made it close after 12 is plausible. Lets say he wins 4 or 5 of the next 6. Its 8-4 or 7-5 Jackson. If this writer wasn't referencing it a dozen rounds later it means that rally(which might be a favorable interpretation for Corbett) sizzled out.

This is me making inferences based on the source available on boxing rec provided on this fights wiki page. You can examine the source yourself and tell me if this is an unfair assessment or I missed something back when I read it. I do not think I can get boxing rec newspaper links anymore either because my computer is too weak or I've exhausted a free trial.

Btw googling yourself and sifting through your pargraphs is a mind**** lol.

Now theres 35 rounds of neither fighter doing anything so I guess a biased observer could have erased Corbetts deficit but it is probably for the best we pretend those rounds never happened because they might as well not have. It is also to important the ref wasn't calling a tie here. This was a KO only fight that both guys failed to win under the rules. That is a very different thing then the modern understanding of a draw. Modern scoring was not consistantly established for decades but based on the sources if this fight was "judged" over any distance(including the fabled 45) it seems nearly certain Jackson would have won. Not 100%. Theres a mathematical path for Corbett if the Salem guys were super off base(unlikely but possible). Theres a mathematical path for a lot of things. But its a fringe one and if a judge did score this for Corbett it would probably be a robbery.

 

I agree that boxing has evolved, just not to the degree many seem to believe.