Who was better - Peter Jackson or James Corbett?

Janitor you are the all time Sullivan apologist .. according to you he wasn't a career sabotaging drunk, wasn't his fault for drawing the color line , couldn't travel to one place but could another and defeats fighters with actual and far more conclusive M of Q accomplishments .. no need in debating you as your positions speak for themselves for interpretation.

 

I have never claimed this.

I have never claimed this either.

However you are treating certain issues as being simple, which are in reality much more complex.

Sullivan was the champion, and Jackson was the challenger.

That put the onus on Jackson to come to Sullivan, just as it would in nay other era.

 

What does he think on the issues above, and the quality for competition?

 

Ask him.

 

Janitor,

1) Discuss his competition level and early retirement ( the first time ). I view it as extra weak. Am I wrong?

2 ) List the age, height and weight of the men he did fight.

His lack of names and small fighters, combined with an age advantage to me is not good I think.

3 ) Jackson, Goddard, Slavin, Dooley, Denver Ed Smith, Maher, and Killen could have been been made prior to Corbett, key word COULD as they were active when Sullivan was and each man would be no worse than 3rd on his resume. Jackson, Goddard, Salvin, and Killen would all be the best fighter he fought up to Corbett when he was 32. Too many gaps.

1887 The Cardiff fight should be a loss not a draw! He didn't fight Godfrey ( he was black ) either.

1886 Jack Burke a small fighter was fouled multiple times in a " won " in a 5 round decision.

4 ) Why you think he had so many fights in 4,5 or 6 rounds.I say because he was out if shape and wasn't able to KO them. Questioning his power.

Educate me without excuses if you can. I have said before I often learn the most from die hard smart fans, which I think your are.

Thank you in advance, I'm not trying to diminish you.

- Red Corner

 

Happy to answer, and taking your points in turn:

1. In my opinion he did fight in a weak era, but it was not so weak, that he could have done what he did, without being a phenomenal talent. Like Joe Louis or Larry Holmes, he was around for about a decade, so like them, his career spanned three micro eras. When he won the title, most of the top men were bare knuckle specialists, though some of them had considerable experience with gloves. By the mid 1880s you had a mixture of Queensbury specialists, and hybrid fighters. By the late 1880s, nearly all the top men are Queensbury specialists. You are right to question the quality of his opposition, but even if it was a weak era, they should have been able to mount some sort of challenge.

2. I can expand on this if you want, but most of the top fighters of his era were small men. Basically middleweight sized fighters up to men under 200lbs were his bread and butter. To be fair though, the same criticism could be levelled against Jeffries.

3. A lot of people get confused about the timeline with Sullivan. He formally retired after the Killrain fight, and was not an active fighter, between then and the Corbett fight. Those men are not so much the best fighters of his era, as the best of the next era, and there is minimal career overlap.

Sullivan broke his arm in the Cardiff fight, as is documented by multiple contemporary sources, so he did well to walk away with his title.

Jack Burke got dominated, and it is worth mentioning that he beat a green Jim Corbett.

4. Simply what the law would allow at the time.

Sullivan's options were to hold an illegal bare knuckle prize fight, or a fight billed as a boxing exhibition for legal reasons.

If he took the latter option, then the state laws dictated the maximum number of rounds.

Given his performance in bare knuckle fights, there was obviously nothing wrong with his stamina.

 

When I see you have posted in threads like this I come in with the expectation to be educated. When it comes to very old boxing I see you as somewhat of an authority and assume what you are saying is pretty much fact. Keep up the good work Jan.

 

1) I say its a weak era and he didn't fight the 4-5 best besides Corbett. He did not KO most of the names, where is the power? The talent that he fought is very weak, perhaps the weakest among champions.

2 ) Jeffries fought 7-8 men at 190 - 200+ or more and a few good ones in the 180's-190's. His competition compared to Sullivans is much better and bigger. That's a given.

3 ) No passes, he should have lost the Cardiff fight. He was out landed and beaten.

4 ) Wrong. Several places allow fight past 6 rounds in the time line.

5) Burke never fought Corbett,.

6 ) Sullivan was in shape for the rare bare knuckle fights. He said he preferred gloves.

Thanks.

 

Sullivan wasn't from the same era as Corbett, Goddard, Jackson or Slavin. He peaked before they became relevant.

 

The gap between Sullivan and his nearest contenders was greater than any champion.

That is why I rank him #1 All Time Heavyweight.

 

You seem to be very confused about the timeline.

Jackson, Goddard, Slavin, Corbett et al, were not factors until after Sullivan retired, or was about to retire.

It is like criticizing Joe Louis , because he lost to Ezzard Charles and rocky Marciano, or criticizing Jack Dempsey beacuse he never foght Max Schmeling.

No, we have exactly the same issues, if size is important to you!

He had a f***** broken arm!

Were they looking for the location that allowed the most rounds, or the location where the police were least likely to intervene?

Take all the time you want on that question!

I think that further investigation, will suggest otherwise.

If he was able to engage in three hour bare knuckle fights, then he obviously had the endurance for a 20 round Queensbury fight.

The rules of his fight with Corbett, were probably what he had always dreamed of!

 

They draw because there were no judges present. But many spectators had "Gentleman Jim" clearly winning it, who knocked Jackson down twice.

 

It was a 61 rds No Decision as neither man was still capable of stopping the other ,and in the round by round summary which I have read, there is no mention of Corbett being knocked down.

[url]Sixty One Rounds Of Combat: Jackson Versus Corbett | BoxingInsider.com[/url]

 

Why do you repeat the same what I made a summary of it?

Corbett was not knocked down, but Jackson was knocked down by Corbett. You have to train your reading skills...

 

No mention of Jackson being knocked down either. The fight was declared a no decision because
both men were at the end of their tether, nothing to do with there being no judges.How many fights in those days had judges?