Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

Corri may have seen Jackson, Chambers, and possibly Lonsdale too ,none of the other authors did.

Coprbett told Fleischer that Jack Johnson was the best heavyweight boxer he ever saw, an opinion that Fleischer agreed with, so that's another two out of the equation.
Jeffrey Farnol grew up in Kent where I live, he did not see Jackson fight ,and did not go to the US till after Jackson had retired . Farnol is mostly known for his fiction, which is decidedly average.
Another one out of the frame.
Harry Carpenter, RIP. Did not rate Peter Jackson in his top ten.Another one down.

"Jackson certainly had better foot work than Joe Louis ? "
You base this on what ?

You write.

"Jackson was more scientific than Jack Johnson,faster and smoother than Joe Louis, and hit just as hard,and had footwork similar to Muhammad Ali".

And, you base this on tales from men who for the most part,[possibly ,three of them may have], never saw him box?

Do you expect to be taken seriously with this worshipful tome ?

 

I'd say Peter Jackson.

Corbett reckoned Jackson would have finished Sullivan in half the time it took him to do it, because Jackson was bigger and stronger and more powerful and could stand and trade with Sullivan.

Lots of the old-timers rated Jackson as the best of the lot. Corbett called him the greatest.
In the 1940s, Jack Kearns had him as #2 all-time heavyweight, behind his own man Dempsey.

Wasn't Jackson fighting Corbett with a busted ankle or something ?

 

Reports suggest that Jackson was past prime.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-50951.html

 

In a poll like this, people often favour the fighter that they have been researching most recently. I had my Jackson head on at the time.

I have recently seen a lot more depth on Corbetts pre title resume than previously. He prety much cleaned out the division en route to his title shot, with his only setbacks cominmg against Jackson himself and Burke.

At the moment I think that Jackson was better, but Corbett had the better paper resume.

 

I always rated Corbett higher.......Although I was never comfortable doing it because 11-4 is not a strong record even with wins against Mitchell, Sullivan and Kid McCoy.....

 

I think it's good to see. :good

 

I thought Corbett's resume a bit thin. He was considered an upstart and a novice still when he faced Jackson.

 

To Corbett's credit he did fight Jackson and Peter was still either in his prime or very close to it ... the rub was that Jackson wanted the fight more so he agreed to the finish fight rules which allowed Corbett top run and run and run forever in the hope of tiring the older man out ... I believe if it was a fifteen or twenty round fight Corbett would have had to engage and Jackson would have defeated him .... still, who knows ?

 

I will see if I had the round by round report. If one were to score the round by round report according to the news paper, Corbett won more of the first 25 rounds. Jackson, though did have some moments. He just could not catch up to, corner, and stun Corbett enough.


Corbett did offer Jackson a re-match. Its seldom talked about by historians, but the two meet in a hotel to discuss terms. Corbett wanted the match to be held in New Orleans, or Jacksonville. His reasoning was he had two successful title matches here, and could draw well. Jackson balked as he did not want to fight in the south. While I understand Jackson's reservations, the T's and C's of the contract are almost always to the champions favor. In rare cases when the challenger is the draw, it is reversed.

 

Jackson chased Corbett for years as Corbett jerked him around about a rematch ... Corbett would never commit .... this is pretty much documented ... I'll reread the accounts of the first bout as well to see the opening scoring ... it is fair to note Jackson had an injured leg that in a match of a equal playing field he would have likely cancelled but did not here because he feared he'd never get the shot again as well ...

 

He was not thought to be in the class of Jackson, but he could hardly be thought a novice at this point.

He had wins over Killran and McCaffrey, who had been two of the better contenders of Sullivans title reign. He had also defeated Joe Choynski twice.

Outside of that, the significance of many of his other early wins gets lost under the lens of history.

 

Bump

Great thread very insightful. I find Corbett sorely underrated. Had the fight continued he would have likely been favored to win. Very impressive performance on both men's behalf. Jackson with a bad ankle and Corbett at an early career stage.

 

Those in the know,considered that Peter Jackson was past his best by the time of the Corbett fight. Hard to see nowadays, i know, but if this was the consensus among the real fighting men of the time.