Originally Posted by McGoorty
Maybe 7 out of 10 in my book, but Corbetts main problem was the quandary of knocking Bob out in a fight to the finish (a concept I truly like as it rarely left any doubt as to the better man.... Lets face it, Corbett lost the title much the same way as John L. Sullivan and Jack Dempsey,,, they got used to the good life, stopped training then stopped fighting for a few years... then cry about losing the title... despite all three of them being warned as to what their eventual fate would be...... it pays to listen to the grizzled old men sometimes... cos they have seen it all before.
It was a different mentality back then. You'd win the title then go on the road milking the publicity, doing exhibitions, theatre. Much more cash for low risk.
The world heavyweight champion attained mythical status that they didn't want to lose. It was a great cash cow. A champion would only defend their title if their popularity was in doubt (often because a challenger was perceived as being worthy and the newspapers started putting the pressure on the champion to defend).
I think that Corbett's condition wasn't poor for the Fitzimmon's fight. He seemed lean and lively enough on the film of the fight. He was certainly ahead on points too. But I doubt whether abdominal training at the time was brilliant (we don't see too many solar plexus knockouts in world class today).
As for Fitz, I've got a feeling that he was always going to lose to Jeffries......