Jim Jeffries of their 1st fight in May 1900,[ when Corbett 33 years old, and had not fought in 2 years, nor won a fight in 6 years] . Versus, The 1896 Corbett who had just kod Charlie Mitchell in 3rds, Corbett was then 27 . Twenty rounds, old time rules ,who wins?
Is it before or after Corbett escapes his mother's womb ? Personally, I feel he has more chance remaining on the inside. It's a barbaric mismatch either way.:nono :hey
I might be inclined to favour Corbett. Jeffries himself was still on a learning curve the first time he met Corbett and he also made some verry poor choices in terms of tactics. He was verry much forced to go into fireman mode in the second half of the fight to claw itback.
Well, changing the fight from 25 to 20 rounds might be significant; might well alter the outcome of that fight. Some people who saw Corbett in 1900 said it was the best he'd shown since fighting Sullivan; so I don't think substituting the Mitchell-Corbett is going to significantly influence the outcome. I don't believe any version of Corbett could be favored, in 20 rounds, over the Jeffries of 1903 (who had a far more appropriate approach to fighting Corbett).
It was 1894, and Mitchell was K0'd in 3 rounds, not 23 ! Anyway, I believe Corbett at his best would beat any version of Jeffries, even the later version. I think Corbett gets underrated/overlooked too much. He was an amazing boxer, but has become a bit overshadowed (on this forum at least) by Sullivan, Fitz and Jeffries, who have more violent and rugged images.
Seems I made two typos, my mistake:good Corbett was Johnson's idol as a pure boxer ,not a bad template to emulate.
Imagine taking all that abuse from your idol in your biggest fight once you're making it. Corbets legacy is hurt by not getting a Fitz rematch as he likely wins
I think Jim Corbett and Peter Jackson were the best of the pure boxer heavyweights up until the likes of Tunney and Loughran. Jackson may have been better than them all. Jeffries was great too, but he definitely got those guys way past their primes.
