15 rounds, 1940's era rules and gloves. Ref's a little lenient with clinching, holding & hitting, etc. Who wins? A couple good-quality videos of Corbett: [yt]TuAcbUV1hFo[/yt] [yt]k7ZXB7Gjw1E[/yt] [yt]tIfcYJpUig0[/yt] http://orphanfilmsymposium.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html (scroll down until you see the playable video of Corbett showing his techniques to Tunney)
The pick calls for a LOT of speculation. I'll roll with Corbett. I like his combination of speed, points gathering left and durablity eek out the decision down the straigh in a reasonably close fight. Moore could definitely win.
McGrain you really rate the old timers H2H but from what i have seen, and saw pictures of and read there wasnt alot of combination punching and surely a combination puncher throughing constant combos at them would trouble them seriously
If you are right, then that is why this thread calls for a lot of specualtion. Corbett was a big, fast, durable athlete. If he was boxing in the 1940's he would have your coveted 1940's skillset. I'm speculating as to how this would translate, from your point of view.
ah got you. Corbett could translate well. As you say he was fast strong and durable. He also had great footwork, i think this helps him out in this time but i cant really say how hed acquire other skills or techniques. Id rather compare them on what he know they can and cannot do etc.... Id still pick older fighters from this era over 'modern' ones as they still had great skills.
I think you might have misunderstood the 1940's reference; my apologies for being unclear. I meant that the size of the gloves, leniency of the referee, rules, and general conditions mirror those of the early 40's. I didn't mean that we should move Corbett's birthdate up a few decades so that he becomes a pro during the 1930s and early 40's. Assume for this thread that Corbett uses his "old style" boxing methods.
Incidentally, there wasn't a clear line between "exhibitions" and "fights" during Corbett's day...which means that boxrec's 26-fight record is ridiculously underestimated: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/corbett.htm
OK, that's my fault CT, i'm shitfaced. My new take - Moore would win. He'd be a tiny bit more active and he'd take a decision, quite wide, lots of close rounds, with an interesting last third. The thing is, Corbett's style is perfect for his era. Moore has a near-perfect style for his. The two aren't far apart in terms of skill - though Moore has a clear edge IMO - or athleticism, where Corbett has a slim edge. Corbett is more durable and has better resistance, but it has to be said that I don't see a lot of activity here. Corbett would be looking to pot-shot and "joust" versus a very, very clever quick opponent who has good movement and two excellent hands. But assuming Moore isn't worried about being robbed (you don't mean that? with the 1940's reference and the colour issue?) I see him controlling the pace and keeping the activity low to take a pretty safe decision.
Instinctivley I would pick Moore but it would be a bit of a shot in the dark. The closest thing to Corbett that Moore has ever fought is probably Charlie Burley for whatever that is worth.
I don't like the Burley-Corbett comparison for the sake of Moore's fight with Charley. Charley's "bigger man" plan might be quite like Corbett's style, but it sounds an awful lot like Charley didn't treat Moore like a bigger man when they fought. Incidently, he didn't treat the biggest man, JD Turner like a big man when he fought him...was hugely busy in that fight, I think.
Corbett would be my pick. Morre could not put away Charles in three shots, and Chalres liked to slug a bit.
Corbett was ruined by a single body shot from a middleweight. Moore would get to him and flatten him.