James J Corbett - The great American hero and an appreciation!!

Read somewhere on here that Corbett was overrated. I disagree James J corbett changed the face of Boxing for the better and was one of the pioneers of the modern sport. A complete opposite to the brawling earthy stereotype....Corbett was an educated, handsome and gifted fighter. he brought science to the noble art. Wins over the perennial Choynski and the respected Kilrain plus a draw against Peter Jackson show his credentials. Of course the title winning defeat of the invincible John L in what is regarded as the first modern heavyweight title fight is what gives him his main claim to fame.

Easy in cold blood to say well Sullivan was completely past it and liked a drink but we forget Sullivan had a fearsome reputation and was a legend of his time. Also easy to forget he was completely outclassed.

Subsequent fights tend to wrongly tarnish his reputation. Easy to forget Fitzsimmons was outboxed, decked and bloody before the one punch turnaround. No rematch was forthcoming either suggesting Fitz kind of had a new found respect for Corbett's abilities...

Also easy to forget that his 1st fight with Jeffires koby23 was described by a reporter "Corbett had been making a wonderful battle. His defence was perfect and he stood an excellent chance of winning had it gone the distance". This was a Corbett in decline!!

Much is said about his racial comments back in the day.......People however must take into account the times. He was a Man of his age If not a Boxer.

I loved the movie that was made of Corbett by dear old Errol........Albeit flattering to the King......It was accurate in that Corbett was a charismatic, confident and inspirational character...

Boxing and life needs them.................

James J will always be one of my heroes...I love guys that slay the beast.... win the Lady....wisecracking while they do so. The guy was ahead of his time and more than worthy of an appreciation.

Agree he is a pioneer Truss but to be honest think even this gets overstated. Stylistically he was no slicker or more refined than Jackson he just gets the kudos because he was a lot whiter than Peter. However would not argue for one minute he was not a fine fighter but do tend to agree he is a little over rated. Will not give him too much grief for dumping the title to a former middle because the gap between the weights was smaller and if you’ve got to lose to a middle there are few finer than Ruby Rob.

However do have to defend Bob a bit on the no rematch thing. Corbett gave Fitzsimmons a shameful run around when he was champion making Bob jump through hoop after hoop before he would grant him a shot. As the old saying goes you reap what you sow in these situations.

Not sure how much credit he really deserves for the Sullivan win, as you say Sully had a fearsome reputation but think at the time that is about all he had. Had nearly died from an illness some time ago (pleurisy I believe but may be wrong) and for me had spent about the last reserves of his toughness and genius in his herculean effort over 75 rounds with Kilrain.

Have no real issue with Corbett being considered a pioneer or an all time great but as long as there is a sense of perspective. He was not the only guy using a more refined and scientific style, the likes of Erne and Dixon were doing so in the lower weights but as tends to be the case it is always the heavy who gets the headlines. Also his record does not justify him featuring anywhere other than the lower reaches of the top 20 heavies at best for me.

On a point of pedantry as well the Jackson fight was really a no contest as the ref had little choice but to call it off as there had not been any action in an absolute age and no fighter seemed to have enough left to alter that situation.

Sounds like a draw to me............

It is acknowledged that he outboxed both Fitzsimmons and Jeffries for long periods...

Both acknowledged greats...........I for one pick him to win a Ruby Rob rematch.

But thanks for the contribution..

Which idiot said that Corbett was overrated, Truss?.....



Anyway, Rowley has done a pretty good job of outlining the reasons why Corbett gets looked upon a bit too favourably for my liking. As with any fighter being called 'overrated', context is important. I'd never deny that Corbett was a pioneer (although again, the likes of Young Corbett II and Gans can lay equal claim to that kind of honour as well), a good fighter in his own right and deserves his own little spot in boxing history, but as I said yesterday I've seen people talking up his chances against guys like Tyson and Wladimir in a head to head, and even saying that, in the all-time stakes, he deserves to be ranked higher than the latter. To that end, then yes, he's been terribly overrated in some quarters.

I guess I'm just talking about his record more than anything else. It's about results at the end of the day and there's just not enough on Corbett's ledger to make him a great in any capacity, really. He was, aong with a few others, helping to usher in a generation of more refined technicians, sure, but given his win:loss ratio against the best fighters of his time, I'd question if his skills were really the quantum leap ahead of theirs which is sometimes made out.

Good fighter but I'll be damned before I call him a great one - but that's just me!

I'd pick Vitali to beat Louis..........and everything before him.......

So that's nothing you can hold against Jim boy..

Vitali is a top tier Heavyweight in his own right. Corbett was essentially a Light-Heavyweight who beat a bloated alcoholic for the Heavy title, sat on it for five years (save for one routine defence) and then lost it to a long in the tooth, natural Middleweight (by Bob's own admission) who scaled less than twelve stone for that fight.

He outboxed Fitzsimmons before being stopped, sure, but wouldn't you expect that anyway, given that Corbett was younger and fresher (the difference in the number of fights they had is very considerable), the naturally bigger man and was generally considered to have a much greater and more refined skill set than Ruby Robert?

I tend to think that Corbett gets extra kudos through being a Heavyweight, albeit an extremely small one. The Heavyweight title was a much bigger deal in Corbett's time and the following years than the title of any other weight class, and had Jim been a part of the lighter weight classes I don't think his achievements, though still sound enough, would be viewed as being as meritorious today.

A light heavy who beat a bloated alcoholic...

Now you've shown your unbiased opinion right there...

Why would bias have anything to do with it? As you know, I've no axe to grind with the fighers of Corbett's era and I take as much interest in that generation of fighters as I do in any other - not sure how any of what I said can be put down to bias. Corbett, to me anyway, just doesn't have the record of an all-time great or a legend of the sport, and it's purely in that context that I'm arguing he's overrated, as he's regularly given those kind of titles.

Why shouldn't it be mentioned that Sullivan was faded, losing the battle of the bulge 'n' bottle and also fighting back from a life-threatening illness when Corbett toppled him? I don't see anyone giving Holmes credit for beating Ali's remains, or Johnson being lauded for boxing rings around Jeffries' shell, or Lewis' victory over Tyson being held up as a signature moment.....Well, not by anyone aside from Gordy, anyway.

I stressed yesterday that there is no shame in being stopped by Fitzsimmons or falling short in two efforts, one of them very gallant, against Jeffries, but it's just not the sort of form which indicates a truly great, great fighter in my opinion.

On the plus side for Corbett though you have to praise him for fighting Jackson, appreciate he was not as willing to do so once he was champion but at the time he faced him not too many other white fighters were willing to lock horns with Jackson.

Fair play to him for that, and the fact he fought Peter to pretty much a standstill (I know Jackson was injured before Dave ruptures a spleen) speaks well of his abilities and toughness.

Wlad has the record of an alltime great in your opinion..

Would venture Sullivan is higher in the charts than anything Wlad has beaten..

Or are we only talking bloated muppets when it suits...as Cruiser Haye seems to be his only decent win..

Corbett was undisputed too...........

I don't particularly think that Wladimir's record screams of all-time greatness either, Truss, but it sure as hell is better than Corbett's. Being undisputed doesn't really mean a great deal when you only defend the title once in half a decade and I'd take Wladimir's title reign over Jim's any old day of the week, personally.

As you and Rowley have pointed out, there are parts of Corbett and his record which deserve high praise and I wouldn't argue against that. He was a fine fighter. Just not a great one for me, that's all.

How is it better than Corbett's?????????

He's beaten stiffs.....................

Longevity......and that's it..........Bruno.....Mccall, Witherspoon, Tubbs all bang out any of Wlad's victories...and rule supreme..

Difference is they beat Sanders........instead of getting big brother to get him back..

Haye is the only decent mark..........Kilrain, Sullivan and Jackson any day...

Corbett was Undisputed............and outboxed the best!!

If we’re going to praise Corbett for being undisputed we have to put in the context of the times. The word undisputed suggests Corbett had established himself as the best of his time but the colour line pretty much means one has to put a huge asterix against that because is debatable he beats Jackson in a title fight or even wins the title had Sullivan chosen to entertain the equally as qualified Jackson. Should be added the same can be said of nearly every heavyweight through to Dempsey at least but still needs noting when reckoning such fighters.

Would never give any fighter from that era too much grief for drawing the colour line because they were merely reflecting the norms of the society they lived in but seems only fair if we are going to put modern guys under such scrutiny we have do likewise for the old timers.

Well, Corbett didn't beat Jackson, Truss. Sullivan wasn't the same fighter any more by 1892 (he'd boxed an exhibition against Corbett fifteen months previously and opinion was unanimous in saying he looked terrible) and I doubt you'd have given Wladimir any credit if he'd have taken on and beaten Evander a few years back.

Corbett does have some good wins, Kilrain being one of them. But that alone can't wipe out Wladimir's collective wins over Haye, Chagaev, Ibragimov and the like. None of them world beaters, I know, but they were the most legitimate threats available to him and he dealt with them all pretty comfortably.

One issue here is that Corbett seems to get more credit for fights he lost than many others do for fights they won. He almost beat Fitzsimmons, and almost beat Jeffries first time out. Can't do that unless you're a good fighter, of course. But ultimately, he didn't win those fights and that leaves his win column looking desperately threadbare for a supposed all time great.

Snigger at Wlad's longevity as champion all you like - at least he has it. Corbett didn't.

Can I join in?

Well then we can count out most of Frazier's reign because Ali wasn't about.......and slap Dempsey around too........

It's irrelevant.......

Sullivan was a monster........admired by all...

Like Douglas... Corbett doesn't get enough respect for showing the courage it took to get in there and fight his fight..

Easy to say Tyson and Sullivan were garbage after in cold blood......but it took immense skill and courage to pull it off at the time..

Look Corbett drew with Jackson a feat in itself..............You add it to Duran's legacy that he nearly upset Hagler!!

playing by your rules..

My point regarding Jackson was concerning the actual wins that Corbett and Wlad have on their records respectively, Truss, that's all.

Anyway, I can't really lay my stall regarding Corbett any clearer than I already have, so we'll agree to disagree. You've written a good article praising him and I don't want to make it seem like I'm trying to turn it in to a Corbett bashing session, because I'm not. I guess I should have invited you back to the 'Overrated Fighters' thread for his one, so my apologies!

Good fighter, but not a great one is how I'd see it. Will leave it at that.

Sven Ottke had longevity and you poo-pooed him..

We'll agree to disagree...but try to be more consistent.

The Ottke comparison is not really fair Truss as you know. Throughout his reign Ottke did not really face the best his division had to offer and frequently had to rely on some extremely kind referrring or judging. With the obvious exception of him not facing his brother this is most assuredly not the case with Wlad.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sven Ottke had longevity and you poo-pooed him..

We'll agree to disagree...but try to be more consistent.

He was also visibly not even half as talented as Wladimir, relied on a series of questionable decisions to retain his title which Wladimir has never needed and also never became the consensus, most recognised champion of his weight class like Wladimir has. Not quite the same thing.

Right, that's me done and I definitely mean it this time.....So make your reply really cutting and contemptuous, because it's bound to totally own me now that I'm retiring from this thread! It's your big chance, Truss!

I enjoy debating with you guys but let's face it Wlad's opposition is basically in the same league and sanders and Brewster both beat him..........Hardly world class operatives.........

A scared Haye is all that really comes out..........

Pedroza had a longer stretch than Sal...........I know who I've got higher.........

Sullivan, Kilrain, Choynski and Jackson..........Four respected fighters....coupled with ability...undisputed champ.....and a pioneer..

That's enough for me to say he's great..