Actually, I agree with you that Corbett probably cannot beat Tyson. It was Jeffries for whom I think a legitimate case can be made, among the old-timers.
How many of Tyson's foes went out in the first? How many of those ever achieved anything beyond a paycheque? How many ever had a level of durability attributed to them on a par with, or even approaching, Jeffries? How many of those fighters were Tyson's physical equal or more, as Jeffries would be? This is not sarcasm --- I am interested in your answer.
I haven't seen too much of Jeffries to be honest, other than the Johnson fight when he was obviously past his best. I've read alot on him though so I'll have a look at some footage and get back to you on that one.
Strange i'm actually currently reading a book on Boxing's greatest upsets - fights that shook the world - from pugilist times to the modern era and i'm currently on the Johnson vs Jeffries chapter.
In modern times without the race-tinted glasses on, that fight wouldn't be considered a shock at all. However, with the Jack London-led racial tension permeating the general public at that time I suppose it could be considered an upset of some sorts.
It wasn't an upset at all. An old Jeffries coming back to the ring after a 6 year lay-off, there was only going to be one winner. The bookies at the time had Jeffries as a 1/3 favourite. Against a younger Jeffries I still would have picked Johnson as favourite. Promoter Tex Rickard's idol was Jeffries and despite making a great deal of cash from the fight, he felt some guilt at Jeffries downfall and promised not to promote a fight between a White man and a Black man ever again, which he kept to apparently.
Corbett doesn't have the mass or the punch to deal with Mike. Jeffries is a totally different proposition. He was far stronger than the likes of Holyfield.
Yes, he was a formidable boxer & general athlete. Inhumanely strong by all accounts, & tough as they come. The more I consider it, the better Jeffries looks going up against Tyson...
I thought this thread was on Corbett ? I really dont want to look up stats for you on how many went out in 1, i just think that boxing was a bit different then and Mike's incredible speed and KO power.. would just overwhelm Corbett right away
he'll be hit OVER AND OVER with consumate eaqse while he misses every punch he tries to throw back at Tyson I don't care how good his chin was, if you keep getting nailed by punches you never saw, you are going to eventually get stopped
terrific, he was strong big deal he had a style that would look hilariously amateurish by comparison and had never in his life seen someone fight like Holyfield or 150 other modern Heavyweights There are Olympic Weightlifting champions stronger than any boxer who ever lived, what difference does it make? they'd be annihlated in the ring Have you ever actually seen this guys fight? Jack Johnson was leagues more advanced than Jeffires or Corbett and even he looks stiff as a board and flat as one too compared even to Dempsey, who came along just a few years later These guys would get KILLED by a modern heavyweight Max Schmeling KILLS Jeffries, Corbett, Johnson, Sullivan, Fitzsimmons... you could bet your life on it
Schmeling has nothing with which to keep Jeffries off him. He had quite a respectable right hand, doubtless, but it takes more power than Schmeling had --- & he wasn't especially great at following singular, hard shots, either --- to kill off someone like Jeffries. Schmeling would have to box the fight, & rely on counter-punching, to win. I don't see it happening, but if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a killing, IMO. I consider Jeffries a bigger, stronger, more athletic, & altogether better version of Marciano.
Ramonza, he has SKILL Jim Corbett literally moved left-to-tight and tried to throw as few haymakers as possible and it was as if he was gifted with demonic posession to these guys... Corbett makes Max Schmeling (a good, but essentially conventional boxer-counterpuncher) look like Nicolino Locche Jeffires would have never been hit with such precise counters in his life, and Schmeling could hit like a bastard with that heavy right hand counter... Schmeling was able to detect Joe Louis's fatal early career flaw of dropping his left a little after jabbing... Jeffries never saw a jab like that in his life... Schmeling would have zero difficulty easily dissecting Jeffries pre-historic offense and butchering him with right hands those guys were great for their time but the sport was slow, ponderous and rudimentary at that time... the leaps and bounds made from that point to just 10-15 years later are simply astronomical It'd be like if you put Mario Lemieux on the ice in an 1899 ice hockey game between the Winnipeg Victorias and the Ottawa Silver Seven... he'd score 50 goals a game It would be like having Tom Seaver pitch in an 1850's baseball game, he'd strike out 27 guys
I haven't seen the Jeffries footage yet, but cdogg is right, boxing has changed ALOT. Alot of those guys would be out of their depth against a modern boxer, would be like putting 1920's Huddersfield (3x league champions) in there with the modern Man Utd or Chelsea sides. Great for their time, but nowadays would probably lose 15-0 or something.
Legitimately, the sport has, but I see Jeffries as better-suited to adapting to future champions than Corbett & co. His style, strength, brutality, & bizarre combination of teak-toughness & unending endurance would translate well in any timeframe, IMO. Moreso than Corbett & Johnson's more cerebral approach. Incidentally, where would you rank Schmeling among the Heavies, head-to-head, since you obviously favour him to better Jeffries?
well, I think it depends on how you are rating personally, I think any champion post-dempsey would hammer any champion pre-dempsey... but that doesnt necessarily mean they are "greater" historically speaking If there were a top 50 of heavyweights all time, relying on head-to-head with a secondary emphasis on "greatness", I would suspect Schmeling's name would appear somewhere in the 40-50 range even taking into consideration their accomplishments relative to their time, I have a real problem rating the turn of the century fighters of any weight class very highly... if you watch Tony Canzoneri gighting in the 30s, he looks WONDERFUL on film... grainy footage or not... you watch and you see a great fighter with a unique style When I watch fighters from 1900-1920, I see a primitive, stiff, single punch grappling contest... Nat Fleischer may have regarded some of these guys as "Masters" but all I see are primitive skills Joe Gans was great for his time, but I think he'd die if he fought Ike Williams or Duran or Whitaker... Tony Canzoneri would be a tough opponent for all three
Got you. Just speaking in regards of head-to-head. Schmeling do okay there, or not so much? I presume you think Jeffries would match poorly with any of the great Heavies, even a Marciano, or a Frazier.
I do... its just a different sport completely. Maybe if Jim Jeffries had come up at a different time and learned the modern style, he might have been tremndous, every bit as great as he was in his time... but I can't speculate on that Schmeling is Norton-esque to me... against some guys, I'd rate him as a severely dangerous opponent... yet against others, I see him as a pushover... I think he'd be very tough on Larry Holmes, for example, but I think he'd get steamrolled out of the ring by George Foreman
