Jim Corbett vs the Middleweights

Bob Fitzsimmons remains the only middleweight champion to truly win the heavyweight crown. A feat accomplished over 100 years ago and to date only partially replicated by one other – Roy Jones.

The man he won the heavyweight title off was Jim Corbett. I confess that I am something of a skeptic when it comes to Corbett. I find it difficult to ascertain how good he was but think his victory over a pretty out of shape and washed up but legendary John L Sullivan is something that propelled his reputation beyond his ability. And his pioneering style and status around the birth of gloved boxing has also led him to be rated in all time great lists.

In the spirit of “what if”, I have often wondered that given Fitzsimmons won the title from Corbett, how many other middleweight champions in history could replicate that? There are certain factors that make me believe Fitzsimmons would not be alone. First is Corbetts actual ability, something that Ive already said Im reasonably sceptical off. Secondly is his size, hes not that big. Closer to a light heavyweight than a heavyweight in an era that didn’t really have a light heavyweight division and heavyweights were smaller. So middleweights coming up would not really be badly outsized.

With this in mind, how would the following fare just for example (feel free to add in others)?

Stanley Ketchel
Harry Greb
Mickey Walker
Archie Moore
Dick Tiger
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
James Toney
Roy Jones
Bernard Hopkins

Honestly, I think they would all beat him. Especially Moore.

It's almost a relief to hear of somebody else who, like me, isn't quite as taken aback by Corbett as many others are. Where were you when I was getting a kicking for voting 'no' to him in the Hall of Fame thread a while back, Manos!?

That said, I'm not fully convinced that replicating Fitzsimmons' feat of beating him would be anything but a tough, tough job for any Middleweight, the likes of Monzon included. In many ways, Corbett was like a Heavyweight version of Hearns - never really outboxed when anywhere near his best, but could be outlasted over the long course, and worn down gradually.

Are we talking about fights taking place back in Corbett's era, or are we transplanting James. J in to the times of the other Middleweights you mention? I certainly feel that the elite names you've mentioned there - the Monzons, Haglers, Grebs etc - are well capable of beating him in either era, but I don't forsee it being straight forward at all. I fully take your point that Corbett was, in essence, really just a big Light-Heavyweight or small Cruiserweight reather than a full blown Heavy, but lest we forget that still makes him bigger than the names you mention. Hagler and Monzon, for instance, never dipped their toes at 175 lb, so there's a lot of scope for uncertainty there.

I would say that the likes of Tiger and, more particularly, Walker may well be a little too small to beat Corbett on any kind of regular basis.

Great article, though.

Is such a difficult thing to say because fighters from Corbett's era were so stylistically different to those listed, not through any inherent lack of ability but as a consequence of the length of fights and the tolerance of the grappling and holding that was prevalent in the bareknuckle era. As Chris as alluded to Corbett's chances for me are largley dictated by when the fights happen, if we are transporting the fighters mentioned back to Corbett's era with the rules and length of fights I do feel Jim's chances improve greatly. Whilst it was not common to weigh in in his era looking at Pollack most peg him between 180and 188 for his fight with Fitz, which whilst small as a heavy still gives him a good advantage over a heavy, particularly if he is going to be permitted to lean on and grapple with those guys over 20 rounds. As such against some of the smaller middles such as Tiger and Ketchel may have found the going tough.

Read this and thought of windy. A thread he'd get his teeth into. I have always had a soft spot for gentleman Jim, a great aunt of mine spurned an interest. I think the potential match ups you propose do a disservice to Jim's achievements. Jim for me was a cross over boxer, he was the man who properly heralded in skilled heavyweights, I'm typing off my phone so, my reply is measured. 20+ rounds of boxing circles around JJeffries, is a man of substance, Corbett being 34ish and giving alot of years to a fighter that had power and size and with a ability to absorb punishment that would make him competitive today. Corbetts problem for me that leaves him underrated is his sheer inactivity. He sat on his title.

In a response to some of the potential fantasy fights, I can see an argument for saying light heavy rrj could have done a more effective job on Louis than schmelling.
Nice thread though Manos, hope it gets the debate it deserves.

To pick up on a point Jim has alluded to also think there is a danger of downplaying Jim's ability, suspect my own posts reads a little like this as well. Whilst I agree with Manos and Chris to a point that his repuation is perhaps a little beyond his record and acheivement warrant he was not without skills, even Tunney was somewhat awed at Jim's defensive work when they playfully sparred at a time when Corbett was an old man and Tunney was neither a slouch skill wise or a guy given to praising his predecesors readily, also anyone who can fight Peter Jackson to a standstill has half a clue how to handle themselves.

All good points, Rowley. I should probably stress that for me personally, it's not a question of doubting Corbett's skills - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the claims of him helping to usher in the era of footwork, feints, jabs and tactical awarness, rather than just the brute strength and power of Sullivan before him, are all well founded.

With me, it's just his record which bugs me a little. Nothing particularly wrong with it, but I do feel that his achievements between the ropes are a little overblown.

Great article Manos

I think Corbett and Terry McGovern were the pioneers of revolutionising technique, not Tunney which many credit Gene with. Can't remember who exactly said it but I remember quote saying Tunney only bettered Corbett in terms of skill simply because he was stronger and more durable.

As for the question, I'm not sure they'd all have a shot at beating him and I guess most will, but remember he was on top against Bob before getting stopped, I guess he'd have huge success against some like a La Motta for instance I know not on your original list Manos, at a push I'd say Tiger yes but I wouldn't fancy him against a Hagler for instance.

Cheers Rodders

With regards Corbetts acheivements, the thing that strikes me is that they simply werent actually all that good, at least in relation to his status.

Due to the crossover period its difficult to get a good handle on his record and some of his opposition. I think you can excuse the losses to Jeffries who was a genuine heavyweight and a giant in those days, and Corbett was old but still performed credibly in one of the bouts. However he was beaten by Fitzsimmons and Sharkey who were small men so with a natural size advantage should he really be losing those bouts?

I think he was skilled for the era, which was cruder overall as it was a crossover period, but Im not sure how it would stack up to later eras.

Of the guys on list I think Tiger and Walker would probably have the toughest time.

I would take Jones, Hopkins, Moore and Greb certainly to beat him.

The others are trickier for various reasons but namely that the likes of Hagler and Monzon dont really have an credentials above middleweight, Ketchel was patchy and had losses to guys worse than Corbett and Toney is a bit of wildcard with his shape even though he managed to go from middleweight and still perform admirably while weighing in heavier than a killer whale.

88Chris05 wrote:It's almost a relief to hear of somebody else who, like me, isn't quite as taken aback by Corbett as many others are. Where were you when I was getting a kicking for voting 'no' to him in the Hall of Fame thread a while back, Manos!?

That said, I'm not fully convinced that replicating Fitzsimmons' feat of beating him would be anything but a tough, tough job for any Middleweight, the likes of Monzon included. In many ways, Corbett was like a Heavyweight version of Hearns - never really outboxed when anywhere near his best, but could be outlasted over the long course, and worn down gradually.

Are we talking about fights taking place back in Corbett's era, or are we transplanting James. J in to the times of the other Middleweights you mention? I certainly feel that the elite names you've mentioned there - the Monzons, Haglers, Grebs etc - are well capable of beating him in either era, but I don't forsee it being straight forward at all. I fully take your point that Corbett was, in essence, really just a big Light-Heavyweight or small Cruiserweight reather than a full blown Heavy, but lest we forget that still makes him bigger than the names you mention. Hagler and Monzon, for instance, never dipped their toes at 175 lb, so there's a lot of scope for uncertainty there.

I would say that the likes of Tiger and, more particularly, Walker may well be a little too small to beat Corbett on any kind of regular basis.

Great article, though.

Must have missed that one. I think on record alone Corbett would be a definate no to a HoF for me but given boxing was in its infancy, the status he and influence he had on the sport would give him a strong enough argument for inclusion on that basis. But his record against the better fighters of his era is scarcely a winning one and I still think dropping the title to a middleweight is a bad reflection for a heavyweight.

For the sake of consistency I would say you could evaluate him on both eras regarding his opponents.

He was skilled Manos it's difficult because Corbett transformed boxing to a stationary stand, wrestle and trade type of game to using footwork, feints, jabs, and speed. If he incorporated this he could be extremely difficult for any of the MW's . Under the London Prize Rules , Corbett would lick them probably but under queens bury its almost an impossible question. I think your picks above are spot on mate and I wouldn't argue with them one bit.

Cheers Rodders

Corbetts arrival on the heavyweight scene was the game changer, now manos I don't need to tell you his merits, I rate them a little higher than you. I think if we accept that he heralded in the current era in boxing in the late 1800's then it becomes disingenuious to pit him against hall of fame middleweights who have benifited from anything from decades to a century of refinement of the craft of which he was a founder.

I like to think of Corbett as the master and jeffries as the student, Although I would always rate Jefferies in a different league to Corbett, I don't think he ever had the talent of Corbett. Corbett had more skill and guile, but of course Jefferies had physical and endurance attributes that make him the better boxer.

For me Corbett is to heavyweight boxing what Roger Banister was to running.

Hes a pioneer alright and probably the first guy to really take the sport forward from bareknuckle to a more refined style. I can easily forgive the losses to Jeffries, who was cruder, but alot bigger and bred for the kind of distance fights that were more normal back then.

Its less easy to forgive losses to Sharkey (crude and wild himself) and Fitzsimmons who were both smaller.

The other thing with Corbett is his size. Ive always viewed him as nothing more than a lightheavyweight. He might have weighed 180-185 in some fights but he never had any weight he needed to cut so he could more or less fight at the weight he wanted. Had there been a light heavyweight division, its fairly safe to say that Corbett could comfortably have made that weight inmy view, had there been the incentive to fight there.

So with some of the top middles stepping up, I dont think its a major size barrier for most of them - maybe Walker and Hagler who were not big middles but certainly guys like Greb, Moore, Jones and Hopkins could jump up no problem.

If we are to assume that Corbett makes the modern day light heavyweight limit we must also assume that Fitzsimmons could make welterweight or even light welterweight he did after all have an unofficial weight of anywhere between 147lbs to around 158lbs during his pomp. This then adds another dimension to the size issue, in Fitzsimmons we're talking about a modern day welterweight compared to modern day middleweights, take Hopkins back to the 1890's and you're talking about a 175lb fighter or an eventual light heavyweight.

Hopkins, Jones, Moore and Toney have quite a small weight disparity to overcome if any at all which combined with their greater skillsets make them comfortable favourites, not that i'd consider them to be middleweights in the same mould as Fitzsimmons.

Monzon, Hagler and Greb becomes an issue of both size and skill, taking into account his fights with Tunney would make Corbett a heavy favourite over the latter. Monzon and Hagler are the trickiest of all the lot to predict because they at no point travelled north of middleweight, they have the skill of Fitzsimmons but I doubt they have the power or pure body punching that he possessed to knock Corbett out. All in all I think they win but don't say it with any certainty because there isn't a lot to go on.

Stanley Ketchel- Corbett comfortably
Harry Greb- Corbett close but comfortable
Mickey Walker- Corbett comfortably
Archie Moore- Moore easily
Dick Tiger- Corbett comfortably
Carlos Monzon- Monzon 60-40
Marvin Hagler- Hagler 60-40
James Toney- Toney comfortably
Roy Jones- Toney comfortably
Bernard Hopkins- Hopkins comfortably

A very strange outcome considering that I have Monzon, Greb and Hagler as the top 3 at middleweight by a fair old distance.

Arrived at this post far too late to make an original point ,you guys have nailed it good and proper.I wish we had articles like this more often

Its a very hard one to answer because the he was one of the fathers of modern boxing, although many modern fighters have refined those skills we should never forget he had the natural toughness of the old time fighters who could take unreal punishment and still keep fighting. My money would be on him to ruin most middleweights with the exception's of Ketchel, Greb, Monzon, Hagler and Jones who i have no idea if he could beat or not.

Can't agree with you on Greb, Ghosty. Yes, things got easier for Gene as his series with Greb wore on but that was as much to do with Gene figuring out the right tactics as about his size advantage - and it was never really comfortable.

I respect Corbett for the pioneer he was but Tunney was in a different league altogether. I'd pick Greb to fight Corbett to a standstill and at a pace he couldn't live with. Tunney is a top 5 light heavy but Greb is a potential top 10 one and too much for Corbett I fear.

I can't believe we are pitting modern middleweight boxers against a small heavyweight who boxed in 1900 when boxing was only slightly removed from fighting?? Its impossible and moronic. They are completely different sports similar to how Amateur and Pro boxing are different. What Corbett did for a living bears no resemblance to todays sport. You might as well compare Lionel Messi to someone how kicked a pigs bladder about (slight exageration!)

Moronic? You're a real charmer, ain't ya!

I guess?

TheMackemMawler wrote:I can't believe we are pitting modern middleweight boxers against a small heavyweight who boxed in 1900 when boxing was only slightly removed from fighting?? Its impossible and moronic. They are completely different sports similar to how Amateur and Pro boxing are different. What Corbett did for a living bears no resemblance to todays sport. You might as well compare Lionel Messi to someone how kicked a pigs bladder about (slight exageration!)

Correct. The sport has evolved so much from a hundred years ago I dont think people appreciate the differences. A boxer from the 1900s for example would not be able to compete with boxers when the sport was at its peak around the time of Ali. Boxing back then was more like street fighting but people like Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson perfected it.