Remembering a true great

Whilst we become entangled in the hoopla surrounding Haye/Chisora this weekend, please take a moment to bow your heads and remember the passing of a true gentleman of the sport...Peter Jackson.

Jackson passed away on this day in 1901 and is widely regarded as one of the finest fighters, black or white, never to fight for the HW Championship. He was avoided by John L Sullivan, whose own trainer admitted his man would never have beaten Jackson and Gentleman Jim Corbett refused to grant Jackson a rematch for the HW crown after he and Jackson fought to a standstill over 61 rounds and four hours in 1891.

Jackson was born in St Criox in the West Indies on 3rd July 1861 but travelled to Australia as a young man around 1880 where he took up boxing. He took to the sport naturally and, under the watchful eye of Larry Foley, he won the Australian HW title in 1886. Between 1888 and 1892 he embarked on a trip which saw him face 28 of the best fighters in England and America and he was unbeaten throughout.

Faced with appalling prejudice, he remained dignified, modest and a tremendous sportsman throughout. He was nicknamed, "Peter the Great" and "The Black Prince" as a testimony to his good nature and was widely admired throughout the sport, most notable by the Marquis of Queensbury. However, Jackson was unable to secure the fight he wanted most and his career nosedived through a combination of fast living, ring inactivity and, near the end, tuberculosis.

Monies were raised to send him back home to Queensland and he finally succumbed to the disease in Roma. A tomb was erected in Toowong Cemetary inscribed with the words "This was a man." It's understood that after defeating Tommy Burns for the HW title, Jack Johnson made a pilgrimage to the cemetary to pay his respects to Jackson.

Today, we seem to revel in the coarser element of the sport and whether that's a testimony to the changing times or a reflection of our own nature, we would all do well to try and emulate the actions and demeanour of Jackson.

Thanks for you time fellas and a shout out to our own dearly departed Windy who was instrumental in encouraging me to dig a little deeper and find our more about some of the forgotten men of the sport.

Rest easy guys!!!!

Nice article, good reading, thanks Dave.

61 rounds, unbelievable. Makes even greater mockery of the 10 round thug-fest this weekend.......

To be fair TopHat, after 25 rounds it was a bit of a stalemate (Although 25 rounds is still a remarkable feat). Jackson had severely sprained his ankle a week earlier and his movement was restricted. As he and Corbett were boxers rather than sluggers, both were very cautious. It became a gruelling, mauling affair with neither man able to gain the upper hand and eventually it was declared a no-contest as oppsed to a draw.

It was this match however, that convince Corbett he wanted no part of Jackson again.

You're fast becoming like D4 with your spamming of the board with articles of your favourite fighter Dave...

Nice article. I don't know too much about Jackson but he sounds like a good bloke and a fighter that was ahead of his time.

PP, you are a cruel man, but I think you'll find that many on here have criticised me in the past for my lack of boxing related articles. Now, it seems that when I do bother to write one, I'm still getting in the neck. Oh, well, these things are sent to try us.

Great read Dave. I had no idea who you were on about, but for ANYONE to fight for 61 rounds is someone to be admired. Just like Top Hat states, it makes a mockery of the fight tomorrow (Thug bash 10 rounder).

Articles like this make me want to stick my nose into boxing history more often and read about these "proper" boxers.


Many thanks for your boxing knowledge!!

Just the ticket, Dave - about time a proper fighter was discussed on here!

Great article, and your in-depth knowledge of the great Jackson looks more impressive with every offering. I expect to see your Jackson biography, released to rave reviews, on shelves next year.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Great read Dave. I had no idea who you were on about, but for ANYONE to fight for 61 rounds is someone to be admired. Just like Top Hat states, it makes a mockery of the fight tomorrow (Thug bash 10 rounder).

Articles like this make me want to stick my nose into boxing history more often and read about these "proper" boxers.


Many thanks for your boxing knowledge!!

If you're looking for tips check out Rowley's boxing book reviews section for some good/recommended reads.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:Great read Dave. I had no idea who you were on about, but for ANYONE to fight for 61 rounds is someone to be admired. Just like Top Hat states, it makes a mockery of the fight tomorrow (Thug bash 10 rounder).

Articles like this make me want to stick my nose into boxing history more often and read about these "proper" boxers.


Many thanks for your boxing knowledge!!

If you're looking for tips check out Rowley's boxing book reviews section for some good/recommended reads.

Cheers my mathematical friend! I will have a read today!

Chris I can offer nothing new to the Jackson story except changing the order of some of the words. It would be like my manager taking my suggestion and saying "Right, tell me agin but make it sound like it's my idea!"

Mobile...I originally wrote my first Jackson aricle as a tongue-in-cheek response to some of the old posters who had started leaping onto various bandwagons. We have some exceptional knowledge on here coupled with a few fair-weather fans (nothing wrong with that, we all have to start somewhere) but I began noticing that people who used to think boxing began and ended with Ricky Hatton, were suddenly namedropping the likes of Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb, Herny Armstrong along with a few fighters who they'd seen on ESPN and were being praised by Teddy Atlas.

Therefore I decided to do a cheeky article on a fighter whose name I had seen mentioned in a book and see whether or not it had any legs. In fairness it didn't but what it did do was encourage me to have a deeper look at Jackson and I found myself becoming more and more interested. What this does is then give you the bug for looking at a few other fighters and it can get quite infectious.

Being a new dad has curtailed this somewhat but it's something I hope to try and continue in the future.

Very kind of you to say so Tophat, never get tired or reading about Jackson Dave, Sullivan would have wooped him though

Sorry Rowley, but you're wrong (and you know it!!!!) Jackson was too classy for him. Speed, agility, ring smarts and a decent wallop on him. Of course, apparently he didn't like being punched in the stomach but no-one's perfect.

At the time the fight was viable Dave I know as well as you Jackson would have done Sullivan as it was only really a logical fight towards the tail end of John L's career. Do find myself leaping to the defence of Sullivan at times though because there is something of a perception to see him as a fat moustachioed brawler of little to no mobility or skill, which may have been somewhat accurate in the autumn of his career but in his youth he had some skills and no shortage of mobility and speed.

Whilst I agree (to a degree) with your points re a young Sully, the point I was trying to make was that Jackson was "ducked" by him as it was widely felt he wouldn't be able to beat him and being black made it that much easier to avoid facing him. The old "prime v prime" argument may well rear it's ugly head but in the context of the article, I believe my comments are fair and reasonable.

Suppose it's no different than berating a tuberculor alchoholic Jackson for being flattened in three by a young Jim Jeffries or berating an over-the-hill Jeffries for being taken to the cleaners by Jack Johnson.

(whispers) Still think Peter wins!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely no argument Sullivan avoided him dave, the same is true of the first George Godfrey as well. When it comes to the colour line somewhat perversely Sullivan is one of the guys I have the most respect for. Plenty of the other fighters of the era had no issue fighting black fighters on their way up or when it suited them (Corbett, Jeffries Hart) but were only too quick to draw the line when they were champions or when there was a genuine chance they would lose. At least Sully was consistent throughout his career, he said he would never fight a black guy and he never did.

He may have been a racist but at least he was honest and consistent with it. John Terry could learn a few things from him!

It seems strange to honour the dead 111 years after they pass. We could make up a 6 month, 7 year or 97 year anniversary and honour a decent boxer everyday of the year if we wanted to.

IMO if we want to raise attention of a particular person there is no need to wait till their death date. It has no significance.

However, if your reading Jackson, I mean no disrespect. Sleep Well.

Enjoyed reading that. Boxing I believe draws me because there is so much narrative and context involved. Cheers Dave

TheMackemMawler wrote:It seems strange to honour the dead 111 years after they pass. We could make up a 6 month, 7 year or 97 year anniversary and honour a decent boxer everyday of the year if we wanted to.

IMO if we want to raise attention of a particular person there is no need to wait till their death date. It has no significance.

However, if your reading Jackson, I mean no disrespect. Sleep Well.

Mackem, no offence taken, it's only because some on here know I have a particular affection for Jackson that I did it and, coupled with the fact that today marks the anniversary of his passing, I thought I'd make an effort.

Thanks for not taking offence mate.