Talk:John L. Sullivan vs. James J. Corbett

--Matt Tegen 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reverse edits?--Wouter 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cap, it was just a fight between two colonials, the British Empire Champion should be regarded as the only legitimate World Champion until well into the 20th Century. JohnShep 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That bout is considered to be for the heavyweight title in a historical sense. There is no point in creating an alternate history, because someone disagrees. Cap was just giving his personal viewpoint, which is completely out of place.--Matt Tegen 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But whose history are we talking about, World, North American or just Nat Fleischer's ? Shouldn't history be facts and not Nat Fleischers work of fiction. JohnShep 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who has published anything that says otherwise?--Matt Tegen 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But is that really the criteria, Fleischer published a lot of phony records too, should we start accepting them now as well ? JohnShep 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fleischer has nothing to do with this. Sullivan was called the world champion by the press in 1892. It's an invention to say that this bout wasn't for the world championship, as that is what the press described it as in 1892.--Matt Tegen 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Matt on this one--Wouter 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just want us to be factual, if it was for the Chicago Tribune/ NY Post (whatever) World Championship then lets state that but not the nebulous unqualified World Championship. JohnShep 17:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on actual facts and historical records, it is unacceptable to recognize the Corbett-Sullivan fight between two Americans as being for the legitimate championship of the world. Sorry to say that America is not the world. Neither Corbett or Sullivan can even claim to be champions of North America as they failed to defeat the only Canadians they ever fought.

I can see marking the Corbett-Mitchell fight as the first true World championship fight because Corbet was at least the American champion and Mitchell was at very least the British champion.

John L. Sullivan was never world champion under the Marquis of Queensberry Rules. London Prize Ring Rules were as different from Queensberry Rules as boxing is from MMA. (Cap wrote)

If you are going to do historical revisionism, you need to present your facts that were overlooked or some new research that has been done. I don't think the facts support your assertion. The bout between Sullivan and Corbett was for the world title, and was reported as such in 1892. Yes titles in those days were tenuous, but no one claimed that the bout was not for the title at the time.--Matt Tegen 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry Hugman has been researching the histories of all the titles. He says that at the time of the Corbett / Sullivan fight (with the exception of the USA) Peter Jackson was generally regarded as the World Champion. Cap, I'm afraid the Britsh situation is no clearer, Mitchell was not the British Champion when he fought Corbett. "On 7 February 1890, at the Gaiety Theatre, Glasgow, Scotland, Charlie Mitchell outpointed the 58-year-old Jem Mace over four rounds in what was advertised as being for the English championship. In reality it was nothing of the kind, being merely a publicity stunt, and following the event the pair went on a sparring exhibition of the country." - Hugman again. JohnShep 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All of which muddies the water enough to question the legitamacy of Corbett's claim to the world title off the victory over Sullivan. No doubt Corbett should have fought Peter Jackson again for the undisputed title, but barring that, he fought the best of the British fighters at the time in Charlie Mitchell. Simple logic dictates that this fight between the best of two countries should be recognized as the first international heavyweight title fight under true boxing rules, as it surely would be today.--Cap

Cap, sorry I disagree (yes yet again, I am a contrary bugger) but how can we recognise who was the best of the two countries ? Even at the time the promoters and press make various claims as to who was the best. We shouldn't make judgements the same as Fleischer shouldn't have, I believe we should just report what happened. If a fight was promoted in the US press as for the "World title" then of course we should report that but make it clear that it was a US press title not this mythological WORLD TITLE. Fundamentally I really want to just stick with the facts and all the titles to say who they were awarded by. JohnShep 06:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Heavyweight situation in 1892

The top two heavyweights in the world in 1892 were undoubtedly Peter Jackson and Joe Goddard. Their sole fight ended in a draw, with any edge going to Jackson. After these two came Frank Slavin. There is a considerable distance between these worthies and the rest of the pack. John L. Sullivan, incredibly, was still recognized by America as champion under the old London Prize Ring Rules despite the fact he had not fought since 1888 (4 years) and had not had a significant win since Dominick McCaffrey in 1885. Sullivan had refused to meet Canada's George Godfrey and Australia's Peter Jackson. His championship was a sham. James Corbett, prior to meeting Sullivan for the so-called world championship, had just four wins of any significance whatsoever: Jake Kilrain, Australia Billy Smith, Joe Choynski (when Joe was a novice), and the aforementioned Dominick McCaffrey. Corbett's real claim to fame was travelling 61 rounds with the Dark Prince, Peter Jackson, to a draw or no contest in 1891. This fight made Corbett's name. But while Corbett waited for his chance with the ersatz champion Sullivan, Jackson went on and defeated the No.3 heavyweight in the world, Frank Slavin. These are all well-documented facts. So, while Corbett had some claim to the championship of the United States (never having fought George Godfrey), Peter Jackson had a claim to the championship of the British Empire, with Joe Goddard the Number One contender. Today, fans would be screaming for a rematch between Jackson and Corbett to decide the title, while supporters of Goddard would be demanding a title shot against one or the other. I'm certain that followers of the sport internationally in those days would have wanted much the same. Much of the American press ignored Jackson's claims to championship, reasoning that the title belonged in America, as was the jingoist thinking of the day. The following year Goddard was knocked off his perch by drink and Denver Ed Smith, while Jackson, denied a decisive battle with US Champ Corbett, gradually faded from the scene. The heavyweight picture was a mess, with middleweights like Bob Fitzsimmons and Jim Hall beginning to throw challenges at Corbett, while few seemed to support Denver Ed Smith as the top contender despite his sensational win over Joe Goddard. So, in 1894, Corbett offered to fight middleweight Charlie Mitchell, who claimed the heavyweight championship of England. This claim was supported by the American press and they talked the loudest and still do today. Peter Jackson was inactive, Frank Slavin had lost to fellow Aussie Jim Hall, and Denver Ed had vanished into the US midwest. George Godfrey was on his way down and Peter Maher was just on his way up. Just like today, some fighters managed to avoid each other. So, where does that leave us? In 1894 Corbett was not willing to meet Jackson but fought Charley Mitchell instead. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to take the global view that Corbett did not meet a legitimate foreign opponent until he lost to Bob Fitzsimmons who by then had a legit claim to be Empire champion. That should by rights be the first World title contest. However, if Mitchell's claim to the championship of England can be substantiated, then I would support that match as the first. Just because an inaccuracy has been carried forward for more than a hundred years doesn't make it right. Perhaps all of the Boxrec editors should vote on it.--Cap

Cap, I don't disagree with your reasoning, I too think that Jackson was the real "WORLD CHAMPION" at that period. However we are interpreting the situation and not reporting it. No matter how brilliant our analysis might be (ahem) I still think we should just report the facts. JohnShep 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all of the Boxrec editors should vote on it.--Cap I'm afraid that even if we did it by one country one vote would we have the slimmest chance :-) JohnShep 16:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out the the remark on the fight page.--Wouter 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why. Seems to me there is still a legit dispute here. In fact, I have yet to hear any argument to support the other side. As I said before, just because an inaccuracy has been carried forward for more than a hundred years doesn't make it right. What sort of historians ignore the truth? --Cap

It's a self-created dispute. We have to report, not make the news.--Wouter 09:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, are we only to accept American reports as gospel? Seems to me if they were inaccurate, it is up to modern day historians to correct them. Americans used to believe that Columbus discovered the New World, when in fact, the Vikings established a settlement in Canada hundreds of years earlier. Should we have ignored this fact because it conflicted with what the Kremlin of the USA considered truth?--Cap