Jorge Luis Gonzalez vs Jim Corbett

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Russell, May 1, 2012.


  1. Russell

    Russell Loyal Member Full Member

    43,655
    13,056
    Apr 1, 2007
    What hurts are your generic assumptions of a threads intention :-(

    Nothing "sneaky" about the thread, trying to promote discussion in a forum that needs it. So stop your butt hurt accusations that anyone's bashing old time fighters.

    Search through my post history. Between the two of us, you're the one with an agenda, accusing me of whatever "sneaky" **** you're going on about.
     
  2. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    As much as I don't like Corbett.. I honestly can't pick Gonzales to win, when he couldn't even beat ham n eggers of his own era.. Corbett could do that and better. So for that reason, I will pick Corbett.
     
  3. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    62,073
    46,983
    Feb 11, 2005
    I doubt any commission on the planet that would let a 178 pounder with less than 20 fights and an ass-cheek revealing thong in the ring with a super heavy like Gonzalez.

    I wonder why that is?
     
  4. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Indeed, but so would Corbett

    As a pro he beat Lennox Lewis, Bowe, Teofilo Stevenson and Tyrell Biggs. It's a full time profession in Cuba and a more competitive sporting environment than the 1890s field of opponents, were there was a talent field of about 20 boxers in the world

    Are you implying it's a different sport, like 1890s semi-pro boxing was also a different sport with less evolved skillsets
     
  5. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,279
    84,123
    Nov 30, 2006
    No round limit?

    I'm pretty sure the guy that kayoed Sully could take out the guy who was KTFO in 4 by Baby Joe Mesi (who, incidentally, was giving up the same six inches that Corbett would have been - and who surely can't honestly be said to have the higher natural savvy and ring IQ?)
     
  6. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    62,073
    46,983
    Feb 11, 2005
    I think people need to put down the ballyhoo news reports from yesteryear and take a hard look at Corbett on film. This is decently enough filmed that you can make out his tendencies, style, technique and flaws, I mean staggering flaws by modern standards. Add to that, he was a 185 pound man with a 72 inch reach. This is what you have to go against a modern superheavy, even one who squandered his considerable talent, was lazy and proved not to have the grit for the upper echelon of the pro game.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVwNVzqQeeg[/ame]
     
  7. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    402,279
    84,123
    Nov 30, 2006
    Either man in that film kayos Gonzo. :conf

    And I'm not a big nostalgia guy or a pusher of the "modern is inferior" agenda.
     
  8. frankenfrank

    frankenfrank Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,965
    68
    Aug 18, 2009
    since about d year 2000 modern is inferior but not 2 those times , at least not on as far as heavyweight h2h comparisons r concerned .
    Only thing that was better in those days was stamina and i m not even sure about that . with all d clinching and d fat drunk men that sometimes rosed 2d top in that era , i m quite sure that their stamina was being far from d advertised , i got a feeling that their rds were about 1 minute long and sometimes shorter . sometimes until a kd occured , maybe even until other things as well , and more fixed fights than 2day . If u can pick such a flawed and not even a very durable nor very powerful lightheavyweight 2 beat a former amateur superheavyweight star with credentials , your prediction sense is more lacking than i thought it was .