So who thinks Peter Jackson would have beaten Sullivan?

Yes I think I do,Ive given Mendoza his props,he is a fine poster ,though he can be a trifle patronising ,when he refers to himself as a historian,but a good guy,except when he gets on his hobby horse of Jim Jeffries ,then his objectivity goes out the window.I made a fool of myself on a Marciano thread recently ,asserting that he hit Walcott when his knees were on the floor ,don,t know what I was thinking of I have the fight ,must have it confused with the Cockell fight ,some one pulled me up about it and I duly admitted I was wrong and apologised ,don,t think that will be happening here somehow.My guess is the last info provided may be met with silence ,or obfuscation.The thing is if you can prove ,or convince people that Jackson was still in good form ,you add to Jeffries reputation,there is your motive said Hercule Poirot.

 

Mendoza care to reply to the newpaper articles detailing Jacksons decline into alcoholism YEARS BEFORE,he fought Jeffries? A simple I was wrong would suffice.

 

Yes. I will look for it. And Yes, I am sure Jackson had problems with alcoholism in his last years of life.

In the meantime, here is another article that says Jackson was pronounced by doctors to be in perfect condition for the fight. He was not ill or sickly. Jackson did well in round one. His trouble was he could not deal with Jeffries power in rounds two and three. Read and weap...

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E0D6123CE433A25750C2A9659C94699ED7CF[/url]

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E0D6123CE433A25750C2A9659C94699ED7CF[/url]

 

Im dissapointed but not surprised you cannot acknowledge your mistake,no doubt the time lapse between the evidence and your reply was taken up by you feverishly trawling for clippings to rebut the evidence before you. You have shown yourself to be incapable of admitting you are wrong,and done it publicly on this forum .Can you hear the sound of wings flapping? Thats your credibility flying out the window. ps Weep not weap.FINIS!

 

Dude, can you read?. Let us get things right, I never said Jackson was in his prime here. I simply said newspapers claim he had re-gained his form and was in shape. I posted two separate news links that said this. Can you post one that said Jackson was not in shape and in poor form leading up to the fight? No.


Just deal with it, and stop playing the credibility card. If you keep this up, you are going to step into a pile. Instead of you calling me out, then me giving the news reads to back up what I said, the shoe would be on the other foot. I will ask you for it. Then we will see has credibility here.

As I said before, you have a grudge from a past Jack Johnson thread and something against Jeffries. I have pretty much said what you need to read here. Aside from Jackson turning into a hard drinker ( which I will look for ), all of my points in this thread have been made.

 

First of all don,t call me dude,up to now Ive been civil to you on this thread,have the courtesy to act the same ,two posters have given you irrefutable evidence that Jackson was an alcoholic wreck PRIOR to the Jeffries match,you havent the balls to admit you are wrong,I have nothing against you personally ,and nothing against Jeffries ,Ive certainly praised him on here ,and recently too,so your argument falls down there too.Read my posts.concerning the Jeffries Sharkey fight,before making unfounded allegations.Face it chump your'e beat.Im not calling you out ,you just been retired!

 

Hell of a thread this. Very informative...thanks guys.

 

But way , way to long ,when you are beat just take it with good grace,people will respect you for it ,but deny it ,even to yourself and you are diminished in their eyes,and inside your own.

 

Peter Jackson by KO.

 

Let's go over things in order.


Mendoza says: Regarding Jackson's TB, it did not get bad until 1900. If you read the reports, Jackson had his share of backer’s vs Jeffries because he had regained his old from according to the press.

Then you said : How had Jackson regained his old form? This post was to refute Mendoza's claim that Jackson had regained his old form ,patent nonsense, to build up Jeffries win over him.

Medoza says: I provided TWO separate news paper links that said Jackson had re-gained his old form, and was in excellent physical condition!!! Who are you to claim two separate sources from large news papers are wrong? This was my initial claim, and I proved it after you did not believe it. Face it, you were wrong here, and I was correct. Then you cheered a remark from Sonny‘s Jab. Not exactly civil.

You seem to be hanging your hat on the Jeffords fight. This fight took place nearly a year and a half after the Jeffries fight. I highly doubt you will see any newspaper saying that Jackson was in good condition for the Jeffords fight, but you will see plenty saying he was in good condition for the Jeffries fight. If you disagree here, I challenge you to produce a report on the Jeffords fight before and after.

If papers say Jackson was in good form and shape before the Jeffords fight, you win. I suspect no paper will say this, yet papers did say Jackson was in good shape before the Jeffries fight. FACTS. Case closed unless you show me a link that says otherwise.

 

The evidence for Jackson,s condition prior to the Jeffries figths come s from Senyas news clipping,from the St Louis Republic Feb 1894
Mattdonnellons clipping the Sandusky star Aug5th 1899
And Janitors piece.
Don,t try and make a come back. Remember what happened to Jeffries !
ps I didnt agree with you before now,but I respected your views,you've lost that respect now.You are just another delusional sore loser.

 

First off, Both Matt and Senya seem to do more re-search than you do. Without them, you are silent. I think we both know that. I don't care if you argee with me or or not. However, if you call me out and call me delusional, I can easily make you look like a fool here if I choose.

I think I addressed my initial point, which was Jackson was in shape leading up to the contest, which trumps at 1894 quote of one of his sparring partners chances if Jackson meet Corbett for a second time. If you look at the history of this thread, that was what you questioned and mocked which is why I posted two sperate news read that back up what I said


You are choosing to compelty ignroe the information from the Brooklyn Union and the New York Times. One said Jackson had regained his old form and was in shape. The other says doctors judged Jackson to be in excellent physical condition.These are opnions right before the fight, not several years before or after. I have not seen one source leading up to the Jeffries fight that said Jackson was in a sorry state. This is because he was not in the eyes of those who saw him, and the doctors who examined him.

Once again, I never said this was a prime Jackson. I said he was in shape and did not show any signs of being badly washed up going into this fight. You did not beleive it, produce two separate news reads that say Jackson was in bad shape months before.

 

Now you once again dilute your original assertion that"Jackson had recovered his old form" to he did not shows signs of being badly washed up,well he wouldnt till he got in the ring with someone would he?For the record Ive been in the ring ,so I know a little about condition,NO MAN WHO HAS HAD 10 RDS OF BOXING IN 6YEARS, IS NEARLY 37,HAS BEEN DRINKING LIKE A FISH FOR YEARS AND IS IN THE FIRST STAGES OF TB IS IN FINE SHAPE,GET IT!You talk about making a fool of someone easily,well you have certainly done that here,if you want to know who look in the mirror!RIP