So who thinks Peter Jackson would have beaten Sullivan?

St. Louis Republic, February 21, 1894

Con Riordan, Peter Jackson's former sparring partner, in speaking of Jackson's chances against Corbett, said: "I don't think Jackson as good a man to-day as he used to be a few years ago. I believe Corbett will beat him inside of 20 rounds. Jackson has gone back considerably, and cannot hit as hard as he used to. His left-hand body blow might hurt Corbett somewhat, though, I think."

 

Thanks for that information Senya,I confess I was unaware Jackson was seen as having "gone back "that early,not that Mendoza will accept it.

 

Jackson went 60+ with Corbett before. McVey needs to make up his mind about Corbett not being for real in his re-match offer to Jackson as champion. In the past McVey felt Corbett wasn't sincere in his offer.
It looks like Jackson's sparring partner was asked about his chances. Care to comment McVey?

Also, Jackson went broke and began to drink heavy post Jeffries. Look it up.

 

I know what I read. Are you calling me out again? Notice a pattern here. I have the goods, you don't, and when I show them it means nothing to you.

Hence, I think in this case you are baied against.

If I produce such a source that said Jackson went broke and became a drunk post Jeffries will it mean anything to you?

Regardless of what you think, I did produce a soruce that said Jackson had a good camp prior to the Jeffries fight. I suggest you re-read it.

 

M ,I think you have confused with some one else ,I never posted anything about Corbetts offer to fight Jackson,chill out mate ,remember Hemingways maxim"grace under pressure"

 

Do I have the wrong Mc'? Ah, it must have been McGrain.

That asside, are you going reply to what I said?

If I produce such a source that said Jackson went broke and became a drunk post Jeffries will it mean anything to you?

Regardless of what you think, I did produce a soruce that said Jackson had a good camp prior to the Jeffries fight. I suggest you re-read it.

 

It seems you are being assailed from all sides M ,you must be getting dizzy from all that bobbing and weaving,what with Mcgrain,Senya and Myself taking issue with your statements ,add the well respected Janitor to the mix and I think you are in danger of going down,but,fair play to you ,you are still swinging,just not hitting the target.I,ll go over your post if you like .it,s the least I can do,as you are still battling on.:good

 

The following short quotes come from Sandusky Star, August 5, 1899 and it might interest both parties to this debate. It is far too long for my primitive typing speeds but in my opinion(because of other material in the article) the writer knew his stuff.
"The match with Peter Jackson...not to Jeffords credit... The once great Australian gladiator is a physical wreck

 

And this is 17 months after his debacle with Jeffries.Thanks for the info.

 

M ,Ive read your clipping it says that Jackson looked good in training,thats it,Janitor posted a bit more where it alluded to age and fast living,and wonders if Jackson can surmount these obstacles, I see nothing that proves Jackson had recovered the form of his youth,just a newspaper scribe saying he looked good in training. So did Jeffries before the Johnson fight,so did Ali before Holmes.Louis before Marciano ,so good in fact that Louis was favourite as wasJeffries For the Jackson fight Jeffries was 8 to 10 on to win,what does that say?

 

The following short quotes come from Sandusky Star, August 5, 1899 and it might interest both parties to this debate. It is far too long for my primitive typing speeds but in my opinion(because of other material in the article) the writer knew his stuff.
"The match with Peter Jackson...not to Jeffords credit... The once great Australian gladiator is a physical wreck. An uninterupped course of dissipation for the past five or six years has completely distroyed the stamina... victory over Peter in his current condition would not add to the Californian's reputation in the slighest degree."
The writer then goes on at some lenght to tell of Peter's hight life in England (and indeed before that) and his long-time drinking. The writer was without a big fan of Jackson as a man and as a boxer and it's no hatchet job.

 

If you guys can stop bickering for two minutes. This article makes some interesting points on the period between the Jeffries fight and the Jefford fight and the circumstances before.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Thank you for the article,hopefully this is the coup degrace for Mendoza,but credit where credits due he kept punching!

 

Another nail in Mendozas coffin,does anybody disagree that this is conclusive proof that Jackson was a dissipated wreck when he fought Jeffries?Maybe we can put this to bed now,and Mendoza will have the grace to say he was wrong.

 

Ps Janitor I,m not bickering Ive been vastly amused how in the face of mounting eveidence to the contrary Mendoza kept asserting the opposite.No rancour on my part I assure you,M is a fine poster,but blinkered on his hero.