Jeffries-Corbett I: scoring the NYT report, and other questions.

Guilalah,

As I said before sometimes a quote gets out on the internet and people take it for face value without doing any re-search. I suppose we are all guilty of taking the internet at face value every now and then.

Credible reports suggest Jeffries swept the first seven rounds, Corbett mounted a nice come back in the mid rounds, and by round 17 to finish the fight was in Jeffries favor. No credible report says the decsion was Corbett's. That was Corbett talking, and some people beleive him 100 years later without doing any re-search.

Jeffries was never one to brag to the press. He actually had a good defense and made Corbett miss a few times.

The New York Times is fine coverage. So is the Brooklyn Union, the Police Gazette, or the Chicago Times. The San Fran Times is good, Fort Wayne is good. There is a lot of quality news papers out there.

Do not go on fighters quotes. Corbett, and Jack Johnson can be full of it at times.

If the fight went the 25 rounds, I think it’s either Jeffries via UD based on a strong close, or a draw. I wish I could see this one on flim. Corbett's people say it was his best effort.

 

"a decision would have come down to the referee's opinion."

As the only judge, of course. But didn't the Louis-Walcott fight come down to the judges' opinions. Off my reading of this article, Siler did not actually see the fight. He is judging off the reports which had come to him.

 

It wasn't Corbett's opinion alone that said he was ahead. It was the consensus through the 20th century. A few samples:

"On May 11, 1900, Jeffries retained his title by stopping Corbett in the twenty-third round at Coney Island, but it had been a close-run thing, for 'Gentleman Jim' was well ahead when he ran into a stopping punch and only needed to stay two more rounds to regain the championship."
Gilbert Odd--The Fighting Blacksmith 1976
Gilbert Odd is in the Boxing Hall of Fame as an historian.

"But Corbett fooled 'em. Had he continued to box Jeffries instead of pulling the same stunt that enabled Joe Louis to knock out Billy Conn after the Pennsylvanian had rolled to a good lead, Corbett would have been the first to win back his title. He had a tight grip on the throne when Jeffries suddenly exploded and the bombardment put Gentlemen Jim out of the running."
Nat Loubet--Ring Magazine November, 1950

On May 11, 1944, Arthur Daley wrote a long article about the fight. (excerpts)

""Ten weeks before the match Corbett went into formal training. His chief sparring partner was Gus Ruhlin. Behind locked doors the two of them went at it in earnest for as many of twenty rounds a day, Ruhlin simulating Jeff's famous couch while the hair-trigger brain of Corbett was working out battle plans. Perhaps there was never a finer trained athlete than the former champion when he stepped into the Coney Island ring. The Boilermaker, on the other hand, had drilled most casually. Corbett looked easy to him."

"Corbett jabbed and jabbed. His fancy footwook and extraordinary defensive skill kept him out of range. Jeff never missed a punch by a wide margin. He missed by a fraction of an inch, Gentleman Jim being so tantalizingly clever that he barely moved his head to duck out of harm's way. By the sixth round the fight had become so lopsided that Corbett smashed home seven straight punches to Jeff's chin without getting a single return."

CONTINUED BELOW

 

"In the ninth the ex-champion switched from jabbing to hooking, almost sending the dazed and blinded Jeffries to the floor. Then he reverted to his previous jabbing tactics as the youthful giant he faced began to bleed copiously from the nose and mouth. The spectators could hardly believe their eyes."

"So it went through the fifteenth and through the twentieth of this twenty-five round bout. Jeff's handlers were getting desperate. Here was the man who was being hailed as the greatest champion of all time, unable to hit a 34 year old ghost. They told him frankly that his only hope lay in a knockout."

"Corbett was only seven minutes away from one of the most astounding victories in ring history when it happened."

"Jeff manuevered Corbett over against the ropes and feinted with his right. For the first time Corbett was unaware of the proximity to the strands. He pulled back sharply only to have the ropes catapult him straight into a pile-driver left."

"Corbett dropped as limply as a wet towel, his head hanging grotesquely over the bottom ropes."

SPORTS OF THE TIMES--Arthur Daley, May 11, 1944--The New York Times

 

Now I would point out that some posters are running a long way on rather tenuous evidence that Jeffries was winning or close to winning by decision. Not one of the four sources, including the New York Times, says this. I quoted Gilbert Odd, one of the most respected boxing historians, Nat Loubet, one-time editor of the Ring Magazine, and Arthur Daley, one of the most respected sports journalists of his day and one of only a handful of sportswriters to win a Pulitzer Prize, and all are supposedly grossly wrong. None did competent research. None talked to the many people who had seen the fight who had survived. Somehow I doubt that.

I remain agnostic, but I would like to see better evidence on this fight before we jump to a Jeff was winning posture.

 

NY Evening World had it 10-5-7 for Jeffries
Jeffries 1-7, 19, 21-22
Corbett 8-11, 20
undecided 12-18

NY Tribune had it 10-9-3 for Jeffries
Jeffries 3-7,13,17,19,21-22
Corbett 1,9-12,14-15,18,20
even 2,8,16

NY Sun had it 13-8-1 for Jeffries
Jeffries 3-7,14-15,17-22
Corbett 1-2, 8-13
even 16
Had it gone the limit it would have been a draw according to opinion of the reporter, and "because of Jeffries' superior strength, his incessant leading and his marked advantage in the last half of the fight it would not have been fair to have given the decision to Corbett."

 

This is very good evidence, Senya. It does appear Jeffries may have been ahead.

I would have one conclusion, though. We have seen many arguments that we should accept this or that old timer as being better than a more modern champion, let us say for example, Jeffries over Marciano, because of a "consensus" of the old-timers and historians that Jeff was better---this evidence does seem to indicate that even the best writers and historians could be grossly wrong not only on a matter of opinion such as could Jeff handle Marciano, but even on matters of fact, such as who was ahead of the Jeffries-Corbett fight.

 

Unfortunately, most of the time even if writers referred to primary sources, it was limited to one or two sources, thus getting only narrow view at the event. And as much as they liked boxing and with lots of experience they had, they weren't historians by profession, to know the importance of looking for as much evidence as possible about what they are going to write about. It is very seldom to see them provide two or more points of views at the event, most of the time just one version is given as the truth, while had they had some knowledge about historiography, they wouldn't be so sure.

 

Error=ignore

 

Black Challengers Jeffries could have met ,imo .Include Frank Childs,who in Jefries first year as Champion 1899 beat Armstrong x2,Joe Butler,Dunkhorst,Pete Everet,by ko,beat Klondike x2.In 1900 Childs went undefeatedin 9 fights including 3 wins over Fred Russell,and 1 over Everett. Denver Ed Martin went undefeated from 1900 to 1903 when he was outpointed by Jack Johnson over 22 rds,he had wins over Fred Russell,Griffin,by ko,Childs,Sandy Ferguson,BobArmstrong and Frank Craig,he would have been a credible opponernt for Jeffries ,imo,plus he was 6 3 1/2 and 203 lbs nearer Jeffries size than the men he defended against

 

Denver Ed Martin would have been a credible oponent for Jeffries but I dont think anybody would have considerd him more deserving of a title shot than many of the oponents Jeffries defended against.

I might stretch a point and say that Childs would have been a good challenger.

The rest of the black challengers of the period would have been no more credible than Munroe, and Jeffries could probably have beaten any two of them in the same night.