Rank the eight heavyweight champions

**** that guy!

 

I think that's a wee bit unfair. Jackson, prime-Jackson and probably pre-prime Corbett had boxed a draw with Corbett very much on the "good" side of the draw. Tbf, Jackson's training had been compromised after he was thrown from a buggy or a horse (can't remember) but it still seems unfair to make Jackson clearly better than Corbett in late 1892. You might argue that they pass it back and forth between them, but Corbett thrashed Mitchell early 94, Jackson was retired and well on his way to drunk. No way Jackson rates above Corbett at that point.

Maybe you could make a case for Goddard?

Are you really trying to say that was his prime?

I'd say his prime was from right after the Jackson fight to right after the Sullivan fight. So if we say June 1891 until September 1892, goes 2-0, wins the title. That's about 20 months which seems to be normal for a HW peak.

 

Right, but they had a fight - a very long, very difficult fight where neither man could overcome the other meaning they are extremely evenly matched. You seem to want now to conflate "best in the world" with "resume." I'm trying to answer the question literally.

So I think there was nothing between them in terms of who was better around the time they had a fight, and that Corbett was clearly and inarguably better than him by early 1894.

Which of these things are you disagreeing with?

I think that we have exactly the same definition of prime, and I don't think it matters, at all, how many fights a fighter has during his prime. A prime can be one fight long. In the case of Riddick Bowe it really might have been

Most heavyweight primes are somewhere in the region of two years. So was Corbett's. He learned his final lessons in that very difficult fight with Jackson, and it would have petered out sometime post-title during his inactivity. I can't see anything even mildly disputable in here.

It's very difficult where Fitzsimmons is concerned because he never proved his long-wind at HW. He seems very durable, especially for a man of his size, but could he do 60 rounds with Corbett like Jackson did? There's basically no evidence that he could. But that's because he knocked out Corbett with a perfect punch and because he was knocked out by a monstrous Jeffries twice. Puncher's curse.

So as always, it depends upon the distance and upon the individual fight plans, but one of them is going over in a sixty-round fight, that's my feeling.

 

I don't think it does at all. Most HW's have 2 year ish primes.

I've answered this in detail already.

It's ok to say that Jackson and Corbett were in competition for the title when Corbett won the championship, but it's harsh to say Jackson was better at doing boxing given how their fight went. Whatever your position, Corbett clearly outlasted him to become better than him, this is irrefutable. While Fitz was still a middleweight, Jackson was retired, and Corbett was the best in the world.

Fin.

 

If you guys are talking physical prime i'd say most fighters are in their primes last 8 years, give or take. I would say that when real inactivity or drinking (or both), drugs, or some other reason for shirking traiing are to hand, that can be dramatically shortened but that would be "normal".

You can't really put an age on it because that has changed era-era.

But a fighter's physical ability, experience, desire and technical ability also coalesce, and this is generally what people mean when they say prime IMO because they want to know how that fighter would do or perform when at their best. It's rare for this period to last that long.

Peak is the fighter's best night as a fighter, and it is usually, but not always, fought during their prime. Primes can contain one fight, or a dozen, depending.

 

There was very little action by modern standards in the second half of the fight. He wasn't injured during the fight, but as I said, his training was disrupted by a fall from a buggy or a horse. I can't remember which.

Well he either was or he wasn't, but it's very hard to tell.

As I've already said a couple of times now, either way, Corbett irrefutably outlasted him to become better than him at some point after his retirement. There is no question of Jackson being rated as better than Corbett in 1894, he wasn't doing any fighting and a whole lot of drinking.

Let's hear the case for Goddard as best heavyweight in the world between 1892 and 1894.

I'm not appropriating any blame. I'm simply stating the absolute fact that there is no evidence for Fitzsimmons long wind at HW. And there isn't any. Presumably, even today, if two men are having a fight and one has an unproven engine beyond six rounds, you factor this into your thinking when trying to understand an outcome.

As I've stated several times already, I answered the OP's question which required a mix of head-to-head in these rankings. I've done that and explained my reasons why.

Because you want to say he has never been the best HW in the world, i'm also having that discussion now.

 

I don't think a guy who loses to Ed Smith can really be crowned world's number one, but I'll settle this argument this way:

In 1893, he was knocked out by Smith. In January of 1894 he quit to Harry Laing in the twelfth. By this point, Jackson had been retired close to two years and was drinking (i believe). Peter Maher, according to Boxrec, had fought exclusively in four round fights between summer of 1892 and January 1894, with one exception, a fight scheduled for twenty in which he was stopped by Joe Goddard.

Corbett, the same month Goddard quit to Laing, reigning champion of the world, stopped Charlie Mitchell in 3. I submit that at this particular point, anyone trying to make the case for Goddard, Jackosn or Maher as a better boxer than Corbett wouldn't be taken that seriously.

If you disagree, agree to disagree.

Well, as I said, there's nothing in here that makes me think Fitzsimmons had the wind to fight a sixty round fight, that evidence doesn't exist.

Still, that's not to say he couldn't do it, but there's no evidence of it.

Prime-for-prime I'd expect Corbett to dominate Fitz and keep that step ahead of him in a longer fight, horse up the points in a shorter fight. For obvious reasons, Fitzsimmons would remain dangerous.