BoxRec

Hey guys

I am curious to know who that exists on film would you compare Peter Jackson to ?

I remember reading some where awhile ago that he was a 'dark man's Corbett'.

Like all of you, no doubt, I am curious to know what he was like to watch as a fighter.

He is one of those guys who many writers and historians write of fondly and with great respect to his skill.

Is there any more you guys can tell me about Jackson, how he was like as a fighter, descriptions and so on.

I am trying to build up a mental picture of this great man.

Thanks again.


Kym

I remember reading some where awhile ago that he was a 'dark man's Corbett'.

Better apt to say he was like the Ali of his time. Even when Jim Jeffries fought Jackson [who was passed his best at that time] he would always say to his dying day that Jackson's right cross was his measure of comparison to his other opponents. That's how great Jackson was.

Unfortunately for him, he came at the wrong time. But he was without a doubt a notch above both John L. Sullivan and Jem Mace and Jim Corbett.

I suppose at the time that was written Ali was not even a baby.

I am assuming he possesed great footwork and natural hand speed.

Is it absolute that no film exists of him at all ?

let alone photos of him in action.

Thank you

Kym

Robinson wrote:Hey guys

I am curious to know who that exists on film would you compare Peter Jackson to ?

I remember reading some where awhile ago that he was a 'dark man's Corbett'.

Like all of you, no doubt, I am curious to know what he was like to watch as a fighter.

He is one of those guys who many writers and historians write of fondly and with great respect to his skill.

Is there any more you guys can tell me about Jackson, how he was like as a fighter, descriptions and so on.

I am trying to build up a mental picture of this great man.

Thanks again.


Kym

There is film on Jackson walking around in street clothes but it is rare. I picture Jackson to be a bit like Ezzard Charles, except he was a bit bigger and hit a little harder. A skilled fighter for sure. Jackson was known for speed, and famous 1-2 punch.

Thanks again

HomicideHenry wrote:

I remember reading some where awhile ago that he was a 'dark man's Corbett'.

Better apt to say he was like the Ali of his time. Even when Jim Jeffries fought Jackson [who was passed his best at that time] he would always say to his dying day that Jackson's right cross was his measure of comparison to his other opponents. That's how great Jackson was.

Unfortunately for him, he came at the wrong time. But he was without a doubt a notch above both John L. Sullivan and Jem Mace and Jim Corbett.

the same corbett that fought him to a literal standstill?

Mind you, now, that Jackson had done been a contender for a number of years before facing Corbett, and it was declared a 61 round draw. If anything it showed he was just as great as Corbett, though he done had many many bouts under his belt and was champion of Australia I believe. It was only his skin color and sheer skill alone, that kept him away from the world's best, Corbett was the only one who gave him a chance...and unfortunately the fight was more like a long, drug out, sparring session.

HomicideHenry wrote:

I remember reading some where awhile ago that he was a 'dark man's Corbett'.

Better apt to say he was like the Ali of his time. Even when Jim Jeffries fought Jackson [who was passed his best at that time] he would always say to his dying day that Jackson's right cross was his measure of comparison to his other opponents. That's how great Jackson was.

Unfortunately for him, he came at the wrong time. But he was without a doubt a notch above both John L. Sullivan and Jem Mace and Jim Corbett.

Jem Mace was about 55-60 and retired (other than the odd exhibition) when Peter Jackson was fighting. He wasnt one of the top contenders at the time. The other top contender was Charlie Mitchell, Britains top fighter of the era
Peter Jackson was definitely the best fighter of the late 1880s. Sullivan was past his best due to "lifestyle choices", and had fought a draw with Mitchell in 1888. Jackson never got a title shot against John L but would have won. Jackson was past his best when he drew with Corbett, and a shell of his former self when he lost to Jeffries.

HomicideHenry wrote:Mind you, now, that Jackson had done been a contender for a number of years before facing Corbett, and it was declared a 61 round draw. If anything it showed he was just as great as Corbett, though he done had many many bouts under his belt and was champion of Australia I believe. It was only his skin color and sheer skill alone, that kept him away from the world's best, Corbett was the only one who gave him a chance...and unfortunately the fight was more like a long, drug out, sparring session.

That may be but thats a far cry from being "without a doubt a notch above Corbett.

That being said its not like Jackson was past his prime or anything. he was 30 and had years of experience on Corbett who went into that fight the underdog. He was also bigger than Corbett. The fight didnt become a drawn out sparring session until the second half of the fight. The first 30 odd rounds featured both fighters trying to win emphatically from the other.

There were various reports of jackson having injured his leg shortly before the fight with Corbet.
Corbet himself mentions this in his bio ... though casts some doubt to the story/excuse..in William Muldoon`s book he also mentions the injured leg - he goes further and says the leg was heavily bandaged.

Either way Corbet won .. even today the loser will have a valid excuse why he lost .. so some things never change

And Sullivan like many of the early champs - only used the belt to further their other earning potential.

Jackson didnt lose to Corbett, he drew or more correctly it was declared no contest. To me the biggest question mark on Peter's greatness(he was without doubt very good) was his draw with Joe Goddard.

My error .. it was recorded as a `no-contest`

Right or wrongly it was seen as a Corbett win

Jem Mace was about 55-60 and retired (other than the odd exhibition) when Peter Jackson was fighting. He wasnt one of the top contenders at the time. The other top contender was Charlie Mitchell, Britains top fighter of the era
Peter Jackson was definitely the best fighter of the late 1880s. Sullivan was past his best due to "lifestyle choices", and had fought a draw with Mitchell in 1888. Jackson never got a title shot against John L but would have won. Jackson was past his best when he drew with Corbett, and a shell of his former self when he lost to Jeffries.

Mace was still considered THE man in England when Charlie Mitchell was around. The two actually fought one another when Mace was 60+ years of age, and he lost by a KO in the 4th I believe...but Sullivan had went over to England to fight Mace, but for one reason or another it didnt happen, thats why a time after that Sullivan fought Mitchell in France, as Mitchell finally gained recognition as the top man in England (as he beat Mace); the draw verdict Sullivan got in France infuriated him to no end, as he had Mitchell on the canvas some 30+ times throughout the bout.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Jem Mace was about 55-60 and retired (other than the odd exhibition) when Peter Jackson was fighting. He wasnt one of the top contenders at the time. The other top contender was Charlie Mitchell, Britains top fighter of the era
Peter Jackson was definitely the best fighter of the late 1880s. Sullivan was past his best due to "lifestyle choices", and had fought a draw with Mitchell in 1888. Jackson never got a title shot against John L but would have won. Jackson was past his best when he drew with Corbett, and a shell of his former self when he lost to Jeffries.

Mace was still considered THE man in England when Charlie Mitchell was around. The two actually fought one another when Mace was 60+ years of age, and he lost by a KO in the 4th I believe...but Sullivan had went over to England to fight Mace, but for one reason or another it didnt happen, thats why a time after that Sullivan fought Mitchell in France, as Mitchell finally gained recognition as the top man in England (as he beat Mace); the draw verdict Sullivan got in France infuriated him to no end, as he had Mitchell on the canvas some 30+ times throughout the bout.

Jem Mace's top level career ended in the 1870s, his fight in the Sullivan era were exhibitions. How could he be the top fighter in Britain when he was in his 60s? Charley Mitchell knocked Sullivan down in their first fight and drew in a curiosly negative performance against Sullivan (past his best ) in 1888. Mitchell was definitely the top man in Britain in the 1880s