Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

This is more my line of argumentation. The eye-witness accounts of prehistorics is not enough to go on. Most those guys did not live to even see Louis, and if they did, I rarely meet the aged critic who claims modern things are better than they were in his own halcyon era. Too much subjectivity at play to give absolutes about one being better than the other or to provide any ground whatsoever for an argument equivocating Jackson to a well-documented and great fighter like Charles.

 

Let me be blunt as well...it's hard for me to imagine any fighter being a bigger version of this

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a9CYH5EVSY[/ame]


If that's the case, then they must be unequivocally the greatest fighter of all time.

 

Back to the topic......

I think it's very very close. Corbett is underrated. He either beat/or was well ahead on the cards vs the best heavyweights of 3 different decades 1880s John L Sullivan and Peter Jackson, 1890s Bob Fitzsimmons, 1900s James Jeffries. That is impressive.

Peter Jackson appeard to be a physical marvel, who had the skills, power, and toughness to go along with it. It's a shame John L wouldn't fight him. it would have given us a much better indication on how great Jackson really was. What we do know, is that he can box on even terms with the very best version of Jim Corbett while having suffering a sprained ankle. Fitz, Sullivan, Jeffries couldn't come close to boxing with Corbett. Jackson did, and on even terms. Jackson had some serious skills. He also had a serious record too. Wins over Slavin and Godfrey are highly respectable for the era.


It's a toss up....I favor Jackson slightly because I feel he is more of a H2H force against the rest of the field. Corbett himself said Jackson was the best he ever fought.

 

I am not comparing the two in a pound for pound sense, only as heavyweights.

Read some on Jackson. He was a swift boxer puncher type, similar to Charles in style. Charles was far from Jimmy Young,..

At heavy, Charles like the action. He liked to thorw a lot of punches. Here he is, with his hands full vs a rather average contender in Valentino in the 1940's. Watch it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYroq5Kb1nI[/ame]

 

Corbett was never " well ahead " ahead on the cards vs Jeffries or Jackson. Read detailed fight reports. He did fight the best out there, no question about that.

 

You are on a roll today. Really, so film is necessary to speculate? Ok-- I hope you don't compare Greb to anyone.

 

I beleive Valentino was blind in one eye by this stage of his career.
He could whack a bit.

 

Right. I did not mention that, or the fact that Charles had to come back a little to win this one. It was a fan fight, but Charles should have mopped the floor with Valentino...that is if you think he was a great heavy.

 

Jackson. I don't think Jackson was at his best by the time he fought Corbett, but we must give credit to both of these great fighters for even fighting to a 61 round ND.

 

I think that Jackson is one of the great "what if's" in boxing history...Yes?...No?

 

So ,Jackson was a better scientific boxer than Johnson,faster than Louis, hit as hard as Louis,with footwork similar to Ali?

He must have been unbeatable then, eh?atsch
Q . 1?
How many of those who wrote such glowing accounts of Jackson's fabled prowess,actually saw him fight?

Q .2?
How many of them saw the modern great heavyweights ,so that they had a point of reference for the purposes of comparing them?

Eugene Corri, for example retired from refereeing in 1929.

Jim Corbett died in 1933,so he never saw , Louis,Marciano,Liston,Ali,Holmes,Foreman,Holyfield,Lewis

 

Well, if you go by the opinion of Peers/opponents, i think that Peter Jackson has a clear advantage here. Though i suppose accomplishments would see Corbett ahead. This probably is too close to call and both were all time greats and are criminally unknown by most today.

 

I don't think the evidence is sufficient to warrant a decision either way. And I think John L. was better than both.

 

You are the king of cherry picking your own sources to prop fighters you have a man crush on. Thanks for a laugh in the morning

How many of those people listed on the quotes saw Jackson. A few. And those who did not have 10X the access to people who did, and first hand testimonials that you and I do not.

The end summary on Jackson is the authors. Jackson was a better boxer than Jack Johnson based on the stuff I read. We have been over too many close fights, losses and draws in Johnson's career before, some of which happened vs tier two type of competition. Jackson certainly had better footwork than Joe Louis. I would not say he hit as hard as Louis though. That to me is way out there, but should not take away from the seperates testimonials.

How many of people in the listed quotes saw modern heavyweights? That depends on your definition. Some of the listed people lived into the 1960's.

Corbett saw all the fighters up to Tunney. He rated Jeffries 1A, and Jackson 1B. In other words, Corbett felt Jackson was better than Sullivan, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Langford, Wills, McVey, Jeanette, Dempsey and Tunney! Pretty high praise if you ask me.