Which historians? I'm not pulling your chain Jaclem or wanting to start an argument, but I've read a lot about that era, and I've never seen any suggestion that it was a tank job. I'm genuinely curious who thinks it was.Jaclem wrote:...add corbett over sullivan.
corbett over mitchell...corbett winning was not an upset, but his scoring a knockout was not expected by anyone and was considered by man, a tank job...and is still suspect by some historians.
The 10 Greatest Upsets Ever...
Re: The 10 Greatest Upsets Ever...
Re: The 10 Greatest Upsets Ever...
...goodnight- all i can recall about corbett/ mitchel is from oild ring and police gazette magazines---neither of whom thought it was a tank job...was just a general attitude by some sports writers at the time and their reason was they didn't think corbett had that much of a punch. also a few gamblers grumbled for the same reason. it never had much credibility and certainly nowhere near the lamotta/fox or ali/listyon II in tank jobs, for instance.
re: robinson/turpin I.....ironically the ring had an article about contenders and their chances of winning a title and fleishcher, i think, said the best of the contenders was turpin but said he had less of a chance than the others because the champion was sugar ray robinson. so yes, it was a very big upset.
incidentally i saw the film of that fight in a theatre and it was the best i have ever seen...all fifteen rounds, including the one minute rest period. no highlights, no editing. fantastic.
re: robinson/turpin I.....ironically the ring had an article about contenders and their chances of winning a title and fleishcher, i think, said the best of the contenders was turpin but said he had less of a chance than the others because the champion was sugar ray robinson. so yes, it was a very big upset.
incidentally i saw the film of that fight in a theatre and it was the best i have ever seen...all fifteen rounds, including the one minute rest period. no highlights, no editing. fantastic.
Re: The 10 Greatest Upsets Ever...
Thanks, Jaclem, it was me, not Goodnight Irene, who asked. I remember reading a conversation Bat Masterson had with Mitchell immediately after the fight. As you probably recall, Mitchell's strategy was to get Corbett so mad that Corbett would lose his head and Mitchell would take advantage of it. Well, the "getting Corbett mad" part of the strategy certainly worked because, by all accounts, Corbett was livid with rage at the first bell. He rushed Mitchell at the bell and beat the living crap out of him, even hitting Mitchell when Mitchell was down. Bat Masterson, who knew of Mitchell's strategy, commented to Mitchell after the fight, "You sure got him mad, Charlie." "I got him mad all right," replied Mitchell, "But I didn't care to get the bloke that bloody mad!"Jaclem wrote:...goodnight- all i can recall about corbett/ mitchel is from oild ring and police gazette magazines---neither of whom thought it was a tank job...was just a general attitude by some sports writers at the time and their reason was they didn't think corbett had that much of a punch. also a few gamblers grumbled for the same reason. it never had much credibility and certainly nowhere near the lamotta/fox or ali/listyon II in tank jobs, for instance.
re: robinson/turpin I.....ironically the ring had an article about contenders and their chances of winning a title and fleishcher, i think, said the best of the contenders was turpin but said he had less of a chance than the others because the champion was sugar ray robinson. so yes, it was a very big upset.
incidentally i saw the film of that fight in a theatre and it was the best i have ever seen...all fifteen rounds, including the one minute rest period. no highlights, no editing. fantastic.