Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

I guess that at the end of Sullivans title reign you have four outstanding contenders.

Jackson
Slavin
Goddard
Corbett

At least that seems to have been the way it was seen.

Jacksons win over Slavin is a big win here because it narrows the field to three and is the only conclusive win between the quartet. He then has draws against Goddard and Corbett. While these fights are not conclusive in themselves I still think based on peripheral details that Jackson was better than that duo.

 

A very reasonable view.

 

I have read the full fight report, and the lead up. Jackson fell out of a wagon 2 weeks before the fight. On print, his mobility does not seem to be an issue.

Based on the detailed round by round, Corbett won more rounds, but Jackson won more rounds by a deceive margin.

 

It's important to be aware that winning rounds was in itself of no import in a finish fight.

 

I agree. But it does show who was the better boxer. Both guys hit the wall around round 23.

 

Tracy Calis comments on Peter Jackson:

Peter Jackson was tall, smooth, and elusive on the order of the modern boxer yet he possessed the ruggedness that typified the “Old School”. He had size, quickness, and strength accompanied by great ring science.

Jackson was among the first of the heavyweights to fight up on his toes. A perfectionist in his style, he developed as fine a “One-Two” sequence as the ring has ever known. His punches had the kick of a mule with either hand.


Grombach (1977 p 45) stated “While he was of the old school, he used a powerful one-two punch in various combinations which made him a tricky adversary”. Fleischer (1938 p 150) said Jackson threw his punches with lightning rapidity while Lardner (1972 p 78) wrote “Jackson’s two blows landed almost simultaneously”.

Always in a position to hit, Peter could feint, counter, block, or slip punches by a few inches and avoid a blow by the narrowest of margins. He was a master boxer and a stinging hitter.

He was a gentleman in every sense of the word and yet, John L. Sullivan, the man generally recognized as Heavyweight Champion of the World at that time, would not fight him. Fleischer (1949 p 103) wrote that Sullivan drew the color line in order to evade a match with Peter Jackson and adds it was well he did because Jackson probably would have won decisively just like Corbett did a few years afterwards (also see Langley 1974 p 20 and Fleischer 1942 p 34). Grombach (1977 p 44) said Sullivan ducked the fight by using the color line as an excuse.

Jim Corbett called Jackson one of the most intelligent pugilists that ever stepped into the ring and said it didn’t matter whether it was a box or slug affair, Peter could adapt himself to it. He [Corbett] often said Jackson could defeat any fighter he had ever seen (see Corbett 1926 pg 132 145 326). Corbett lived until 1933.

In describing Jackson, Lardner (1972 p 77) wrote “He is considered by many experts to have been the greatest heavyweight who ever lived”. He added, “Corbett ranked him with Jeffries as one of the two greatest heavyweights of all time”.

Corbett related that he once saw speedy Joe Choynski spar with Jackson and not manage to touch him with a glove. He added that on another occasion Jackson boxed with Bob Fitzsimmons in an exhibition and it was like a professor giving a pupil a lesson (see Fleischer 1938 p 123).


Corbett and Jackson fought sixty-one rounds in 1891 in one of the ring’s greatest battles. Jackson entered the contest with a cold and a sprained ankle. These two conditions caused him to stop training ten days prior to the fight. Yet, it was Corbett who was more hard pressed during the contest.

Frank “Paddy” Slavin, a hard-hitting scrapper of the modern Jack Dempsey mold who fought Jackson in another of the ring’s great fights, called Peter “unbeatable … the greatest of all masters” (Langley 1974 p 60).

Bob Fitzsimmons refused to meet him in an official fight, calling him the greatest fighter who ever breathed. Fitz said that Jackson was the daddy of them all and that he [Fitz] did not care for the fight (see Fleischer 1938 p 124).

Jim Jeffries once commented on the stiffness of Peter’s punches – short, crisp, and hard. Lardner (1972 p 77) said “Jeffries later used the memory of a punch Jackson had thrown at him as the basis for comparison with all the other single devastating punches he had received”.

Lord Lonsdale of England, early president of London’s National Sporting Club and namesake of the Lonsdale Belt, said that although Jack Johnson was the best heavyweight of his time, he [Johnson] never equaled Jackson for science and skill (see Langley 1974 p 61).


Carpenter (1975 p 30) called Jackson “one of the great fighters of the time”. Durant (1976 p 30) said Jackson “may have been the greatest ringman of any age”. Burrill (1974 p 95) wrote “One of his time’s most feared and popular boxers”.

Fleischer (1938 p 159) said Jackson was “regarded as the greatest boxer of his era”. He went on to say that few fighters could be rated superior to Jackson and described him as a sharpshooter and two-fisted scientific hitter. Nat described him as having a powerful left, an excellent jabbing and hooking game, and a wicked right-hand chop.

Arthur Chambers, the man most often credited with developing the Marquis of Queensberry rules and perhaps the foremost boxing authority in America at the time, (see Lardner 1972 p 79) said, “He’s a wonder, make no mistake about his ability. He is one of the finest specimens of fighting man I’ve ever seen” (see Fleischer 1938 p 141).

Farnol (1928 p 177) elaborated on Jackson “Perhaps for his size the most finished and beautiful boxer ever seen; magnificently shaped from head to foot, his every move was graceful; also he was incredibly quick and very sure”.

Lardner (1972 p 78) described Jackson in battle as moving out carefully, throwing punches with a pumalike grace, stalking his man about the ring, avoiding blows with ease, and hitting his adversary so hard it took a quart of whiskey to revive him.

He added Jackson was like a hurricane tearing through the ranks of the Australian heavyweights, knocking out everyone and later turning to “right-hand barred” exhibitions in which he was not allowed to hit with his right.

Eugene Corri, who was considered by many to be the greatest referee of modern times (see Grombach 1977 p 183), called Peter Jackson the best boxer he ever saw (Farnol 1928 pg 179 180). In other articles, Corri called Jackson the greatest heavyweight he had ever seen.

Jackson was a Muhammad Ali “look-a-like”. He boxed rather than slugged and moved gracefully, quickly, and easily about the ring avoiding punches. He was almost the same physical size as Ali but never allowed himself to get as heavy as did Ali in his later career. He even looked enough like Ali in his facial features to be his brother. His personality was likeable and almost everyone who met him developed a genuine affinity for him. He, perhaps, was not as quick as Ali (but almost) and he hit a little harder.


Jackson was like Sam Langford in that he was so good the champions of his time would not risk their titles against him. These two powerhouse fighters were probably the greatest pugilists never to fight for the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

In summary, Jackson was more scientific than Jack Johnson, was faster and smoother than Joe Louis but hit just as hard, and possessed footwork similar to Muhammad Ali. In the opinion of this writer, Jackson was one of the greatest fighters in the history of the heavyweight division and deserves to be ranked among the all-time best men in this weight class.

 

Tracy Callis on Jim Corbett:

Jim Corbett was a boxer deluxe. He was fast, clever, and elusive with excellent speed of hand and foot. He used a repertoire of jabs, hooks, and crosses while keeping his distance during the early part of a fight. But, if he chose to, Jim could stand within an arm’s reach of an opponent and hit him at will without being struck himself. Now and then, when an enemy was flat-footed or off guard, the “Gent” would move in and slam home a hard one. His punch was stiffer than most people give him credit for.

Corbett was the second champion under the Marquis of Queensberry rules. Some historians write that during his entire career (18 years) he never got a black eye or bloody nose. He was “heady” and an exceptional innovator. If a fight did not go according to plan (most did), he could adjust and change tactics in a flash.

Jim was so quick and smooth that his opponent’s physical size or boxing skills was never a handicap to him. He knocked out John L. Sullivan, the powerful bully. He went 61 rounds with the two-hundred pound Peter Jackson. He made a mess of Bob Fitzsimmons in the early rounds of their championship fight and, had the count been carried out fairly (many sources say it was slow), he would have scored a sixth-round knockout.

But, he did err and get too close to Jim Jeffries – more out of disregard than error. Corbett boxed 23 rounds with Jeffries in their first bout and cut the big man’s face to shreds. Corbett later joked that he was ahead 22-0 going into the fatal 23rd round.

William Brady, manager of both Corbett and Jeffries, when asked to compare the two, said “I have a leaning, a slight leaning, toward Corbett. He combined the most desired qualities of brain and brawn to a degree I have never seen in any other fighter, past or present” (see Edgren 1926).

Houston (1975 p 9) said “He believed in hitting without being hit and moved gracefully about the ring, relying on the speed and accuracy of his hits to wear down opponents …”. Durant and Bettman (1952 p 82) said Corbett “… could feint, slip punches, side-step, and counter with a left jab so fast that it was a blur to the eye”.

Litsky (1975 p 76) said “James J. Corbett was one of the great heavyweight boxing champions and one of the great innovators … He originated the counter punch, the feint, and fast footwork.”



Durant and Rice (1946) called Corbett a skilled boxer who was lightning fast and one of the most scientific fighters of all time. They added, “In the ring he was ice cold. No man before him had ever applied himself to his trade as did Corbett to the study of boxing”.

Burrill (1974 pp 50 51) said “Corbett marked [the] turning point in ring history, replacing mauling sluggers with [the] new school of faster, scientific boxers”. Jem Mace, Britain’s great bare-knuckle champion called Corbett “… the most scientific boxer …” he had ever seen (see Durant 1976 pp 38 39).

Grombach (1977 p 48) wrote that Corbett was the first man to introduce defensive tactics into championship competition and the principle that a man cannot be beaten if he cannot be hit. Willoughby (1970 p 358) wrote of Corbett “… without doubt the greatest of all defensive boxers among the heavyweights …”.

Fleischer and Andre (1975 p 71) stated that at the peak of his career no one could compare with him in quick thinking and cleverness. McCallum (1974 p 22) said “James John Corbett is down in history as the most intelligent prize fighter the ring has ever known – the supreme master of defensive boxing”. Keith (1969 p 114) wrote “Jim Corbett … probably had the fastest and cleverest footwork of any man ever to fight for the world’s heavyweight championship”.

Durant (1976 p 33) said he “… developed the beautifully proportioned body of a Greek athlete” and that he was an accomplished counter puncher.

Odd (1976 p 141) wrote that Corbett appeared to be the perfect athlete with his beautiful muscularity. He earlier wrote (1974 p 16) he [Corbett] placed the science of boxing before brawn and added “Corbett specialized in a straight left lead and a right cross and he cultivated footwork to a fine degree”.

Jim Jeffries said Corbett was “… the cleverest man I ever fought. There isn’t a fighter of any weight, living or dead, who could measure up to him as a boxer” (see Litsky 1975 p 76).

Grantland Rice (1954 pp 142 143) called Corbett “the world’s greatest boxer” and wrote that in 1925, Corbett (at the age of 59) sparred three rounds with Gene Tunney. Rice stated that “Tunney was on the defensive. Corbett was brilliant . He still had bewildering speed! He mixed up his punches better than practically any fighter I’ve ever seen …”. Tunney commented “It was the greatest thing I’ve ever seen in the ring. I learned plenty” (also see McCallum 1974 p 6)



Lardner (1972 p 69) asserted “James J. Corbett was the greatest boxer of all time among the heavyweights and one of the greatest ring generals of any weight. No heavyweight ever approached him in the ability to ride with a punch (and so remove part of its sting); slip a punch; make his opponent lead before he was ready and then counter with a series of pistonlike jabs; feint an opponent into committing a defensive maneuver and then attack the newly vulnerable area; or drift just out of reach of a punch a split second before it reached its intended target”.

In the opinion of this writer, Corbett was the fastest heavyweight boxer ever over the entire course of a fight (not just the early rounds) and the #7 All-Time Heavyweight in boxing history.

 

So I am to a combination of Ali, Langford, Louis and Johnson would only manage a draw against a fairly green Corbett or a crude Goddard.

This is the hyperbolic drivel which only the most un-rigorous intellectual demands are happy to regurgitate. Good job googling.

 

Forget the author's summary. The testimonials of the time give you an idea on Jackson and Corbett. I tend to view Jackson as a bigger version of Ezzard Charles.

 

Interesting to see Jackson given the edge in technique, McGrain, considering how Corbett is usually so revered in that sense as an innovator.

 

Corbett was an innovator. He revolutionized the concept of lateral movement in gloved boxing. Corbett was very quick with his hand and feet, and rather hard to catch cleanly.

Jackson had better technique from a punching standpoint.

 

:roll:


That's a bit over the top. Despite that fact that you think less of Charles than 95% of the boxing world, this doesn't mean you have to undermine him this much. Ezzard Charles is a recognized top 10 fighter of all time, and in many lists, top 5 fighter of all time. Peter Jackson was a great fighter, but without any film to speculate that he had the skills/speed/savvy/technique/footwork of a prime Ezzard Charles + the size is unrealistic, and unfathomable.


Then again, you think Ezzard Charles was a "brawler". Perhaps your word on Ezzard Charles should be taken with a grain of salt.