Would a prime version of The Boston Strong Boy have beaten Corbett or would Jim's superior skills always have overcome his man,albeit in a far more competitive bout ? I lean towards the latter scenario.
I think a prime Sullivan would have taken him. By the time Corbett had gotten to him, Sullivan had broken his arm which healed badly, was on death's door for 9 weeks (and one crutches for another 6 weeks) from typhoid fever and had gone into a coma twice due to alcohol poisoning. He was pretty much as shot as a fighter his age could have been. Corbett himself remarked that had Sullivan gotten to his chin he would have been out. He said he came close in the early rounds and Jim switched back to boxing and moving. I tend to agree with this.
I would gowith Sullivan here. Corbett was a briliant boxer, but the very best finishers he fought caught up with him eventualy, and Sullivan was more destructive than Fitzsimmons or Jeffries. My guess is that Corbett would have had his moments, but that would not be able to stay away from a prime rampaging Sullivan for 20 rounds.
If it was a finish fight, Corbett may win if Sullivan doesn't fight smart or trains lackadaisically; if Sullivan trains seriously and fights smart, I don't see any worse for him than a stalemate. I can't see Corbett coming at Sullivan too seriously unless Sullivan's really going, and I don't see that scenario if Sullivan takes the match seriously and fights sensibly.
I think the Sharkey-Corbett fight may be the key here. Tom was fast but probably not as quick as John l. Tom hit hard but certainly not as hard as Sullivan. Tom was more of a swarmer while Sullivan was more a stalker but a deadly one. Corbett to win the early rounds but gets caught and bombed out mid-rounds say, 8-10.
On a side note, Corbett is a pygmy next to Sullivan, both as a champion and in terms of historical impact!
I like the Sharkey analogy as well. In a fifteen or twenty round bout Sullivan may have run him out of the ring. U certainly Cannot go by what happened in New Orleans.
I would lean toward Corbett. While Sullivan was a big puncher, Corbett too big shots from Jackson who can hit, and Choynski who could hit. For most of the rounds, Corbett was getting the better of Fitz. Fitz was very crafty and set up the KO body shot with a quick feint to the head. Corbett adjusted his guard high, and at that moment Fitz landed a hook to the lower ribs. My guess is Sullivan was a crafty ring general on Fitz's level. Corbett is the taller of the two, faster, far harder to hit, and I think better at ring generalship. I'd go with him via decision in a 25 round fight or less. Hard to say though. There is no live action film on Sullivan, and his timeline did not feature many top level gloved fighters.
Well, Sullivan's probably going to walk through anything Corbett throws at him, for starters. Against the machine who destroyed Ryan, Corbett probably gets mugged like he did against Sharkey. Sullivan had fast hands and could rough-house an opponent in his prime. Corbett's going to have to work a lot harder against a larger man who will consistently close the gap and beat Corbett up. Corbett took technicians, smaller fighters, and counterpunchers apart. Sullivan is none of these.
Sullivan was floored by Mitchell, a fighter Cobrett destroyed in three rounds. I think after the first three rounds, Sullivan would have to respect Corbett's power somewhat. Fitzsimmons who fought a who's who of the time, said Corbett had a stiff punch, and under rated power. He would know. A key point is Sullivan fought in a forward to back style of boxing where fighters knew where the other guy was going to be. Corbett used lateral movement and circling. What good is a right handed puncher who did not have a big left if he can't catch his man or set his feet to unload?
Mitchell -- who hit a lot harder than Corbett despite his low boxrec KO % -- scored a flash knockdown over Sullivan. Sullivan then proceeded to bounce Charlie around like a basketball before police stopped the fight in the 3rd. Mitchell was long, long past his best by the time Corbett got him. Corbett needed well over 15 rounds to wear the dissipated, wheezing, alcoholic shadow of Sullivan down. A good win, but nothing like fighting Sullivan in his prime. You can argue that Corbett wasn't sitting down on his punches against ancient Sullivan, but that doesn't change anything here, because he's not going to trade with a prime Sullivan either. Fighters did not exclusively move in straight lines before Corbett. The style of attack was more linear, but Corbett had the same problem in that regard. The manuals show an appreciation for lateral movement -- especially subtle lateral movement -- and Corbett did not learn his craft in a vacuum. Corbett is not the first fighter who understood how to move sideways.
And Mitchell is likely Sullivan's best gloved win. What is that saying? We agree the New Orleans fight between the two means little except on how Corbett would execute his gameplan. In addition to no live ring film on Sullivan, his prime came and went quickly, and he really did not beat a top level gloved fighter. I think Sullivan was a puncher. Punchers tend to blow away lesser competition. Had Sullivan fought and beaten Jackson, Slavin, or Goddard, he would have a much better argument as any of the three would be his best win. John L's resume remains thin. I would agree. But i also think after a few rounds Sullivan would respect Corbett's punches. Corbett perfected it and incorporated it into boxing better than anyone before him. He is unlike anyone Sullivan fought.
Power is often guilty of blurring the bigger picture; you don't have as much success as Sullivan unless you've got more going on than a cracking punch. He really was a spent force when Corbett danced around him. At his prime, aside from from the fact his stamina was far better, he was also fast, and this speed would offset one of Corbett's big advantages. The younger John L. would've rushed Corbett's decisions and threatened with much more reliable weaponry. It would never be easy as Corbett moved about and used his left, but Jim benefits from that historical agenda whereby Sullivan is the uncoordinated bare-knuckler who knows nothing of Queensberry fighting; of course, he had far more gloved fights. I have to favour the man with the fearsome reputation who only had his lifestyle to blame for slipping.
It's saying that after a little bit of trouble, Sullivan blasted out his best gloved challenger while the latter was still in his prime. And excluding Sullivan's bareknuckle bouts does his record a disservice, IMO. It also means that Corbett isn't going to be hurting Sullivan, since he couldn't hurt / sit down on his punches against / trade with the old husk of Sullivan. Well, obviously. But this means little about his abilities. He reigned for 10 years. He beat everyone around at the time. Mitchell, Ryan, Elliott, Slade, McCaffrey, Herald, Dalton, Rooke, Taylor, Donaldson, etc. Drew with Cardiff despite a broken arm, FWIW. And Kilrain. I think that this last one is significant. Your summation excludes Kilrain because it was a fight under bareknuckle rules. This gives a skewed view of Sullivan, since Kilrain was clearly the best challenger in the world and had shown himself a master of both gloved and bareknuckle rules. Yup. Jackson, Goddard, and Slavin came at the tail end of his reign. Why? Corbett needed round after round of weak punches to knock Sullivan out in their actual fight. He either didn't hit hard, or wouldn't be sitting down on his shots. Based on what? Again, manuals from the 1880s show everything Corbett does. For that matter, the earliest boxer we've captured on film -- an ancient Billy Edwards in an exhibition in front of Edison's cameras -- shows more lateral movement than Corbett's exhibition against Courtney.
