barry wrote:I'm 40, but I have 30+ years of research, 25+ years of very dedicated research, which my favorite era is 1895-1920, but then again I enjoy the 30s and 40s just as much, but in my personal library of boxing material I do have more memorabilia from the 1950s onward! As to competition, I agree that Beau Jack fought the better opposition overall, but again, Duran is a top-3 all-time lightweight. In terms of style Jack is right there with the Danny Lopez's, Rocky Graziano's and Henry Armstrong's in terms of excitement, but a prime Armstrong, in my opinion wins pretty handily over Beau Jack! I have researched Beau Jack about as much as I have any fighter with maybe the exception of Terry McGovern, Sam Langford and "Barbados" Joe Walcott and he was a great fighter who truly deserves Hall of Fame status...I just don't rate him in the same class as Duran, Gans, or Leonard! In terms of excitement, he would not have been at MSG as much as he was if he had not been great! I never met him, but from what I have read he was a real good guy as well and unfortunately, like so many other greats, he was not able to hold on to what he made in the ring, but then again, when people give fighters flack for losing miliions they don't take into count that a lot of the fighters never finished school and few, although intelligent, could not be called highly educated, with execptions like Chuck Davey, and also they are very young when they make a fortune. I'm sure if I had 10 million dollars when I was 20 I would be broke. I have a hard time rating fighters of today with the old-timers, with the exception of a few of course who could fight in any era, so I guess I am an "old-timer" at heart, certainly physically I am on the down-side! I know I certainly would have loved to have seen the fights and fighters live that you have, which hopefully if I make it to Heaven my version will be one in which I get to watch all the mythical matches that we all love to argue about...it would great to see a couple of rounds of Graziano vs Ketchel and others of the like!
Barry, a delight to know about your love of boxing history and the great fighters of the past.
As to the relative merits of Beau Jack and Roberto Duran, I agree with you that Duran was the greater fighter career-wise. No doubt about that...I too know a bit about Beau Jack considering Beau was in the first main event bout my dad took me to see..Against a tough S.O.B. Terry Young, a tough pal of Rocky Graziano at St Nicks Arena, NY. I also saw Beau Jack beat a past peak Henry Armstrong ,
Bob Montgomery, Al [Bummy ] Davis, Ike Williams and quite a few other top fighters in the talent rich 1940s...The Beau Jack I saw against Henry Armstrong after Beau Jack whipped the bigger Fritzie Zivic
twice in a row was a human dynamo at this time...I truly believe THIS Beau Jack ,before his brave mgr
overfought him, would have decisioned any version of the 135 pound Duran. This Beau was a powerfully built minuature version of a Harry Greb, who would have out volleyed Duran at the 135 pound weight. Beau Jack at the start of his career fought weekly against the toughest LWs of that time
and was burnt out by the time he was kod by the great Ike Williams in Philly in 1948, in which I
as a teenager traveled by bus to Philly to see that bout...
So yes Roberto Duran was a better all around fighter who went up in weight with success. No doubt about it. But were Beau Jack from the Henry Armstrong Zivic victories, hooked up with the 135 pound Duran, my dough would be on my namesake, 15 rounds... Take care ...
P.S. It is too bad that you and other board members only see ONE remaining film of Beau in action
against Ike Williams, when he was burnt out by 1948...But I was lucky to see him ringside....