Jim Hall v. Jim Fogarty

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 17 Aug 2007, 22:15

Does someone have a primary source for Hall's alleged 1887 KO win over Fogarty?

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 18 Aug 2007, 03:39

Boxrec has it as a draw. It may have been a newspaper decision.

Hall later beat Slavin by a 7 round KO. He must have been good.

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 18 Aug 2007, 10:23

Can someone definitively confirm for me with a primary source whether Jim Hall stopped Jim Fogarty in the 20th round on October 17, 1887 (or thereabouts) to win the Australian middleweight crown?

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 18 Aug 2007, 19:32

Furthest I can go back is I had a great uncle who saw Jack Johnson beat Tommy Burns for the World Heavyweight Championship at Sydney Stadium in 1908. If you want an eyewitness for a fight in 1887 you may have a problem.

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 18 Aug 2007, 20:05

I meant a newspaper account. Thanks.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 19 Aug 2007, 01:39

Try your local library. They could have microfilm of the Sydney Morning Herald for the date.

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 19 Aug 2007, 10:17

Not unless I live in Australia, which I don't.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 20 Aug 2007, 03:33

According to historian John Hogg, who's been researching & keeping records since he was in nappies the fight never happened.

There are also numerous errors in Hall's record

John Hogg is ANBF Queensland fight supervisor & chairs ANBF (national) Ratings committee.

Cheers

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 20 Aug 2007, 10:29

Do you have a contact for him or could you give him my contact?

[email protected]

The real issue I have is that Hall vs. Fitz I was described as being for the Australian middleweight championship. Fitz wins. Then later in the year Hall is called the middleweight champion. What gives? I know Hall fought Fogarty to a 15 round draw in the interim, and I think Fogarty was also considered the Australian middle champ. But was Hall's draw with Fogarty somehow considered a win for him? Or is something else going on?

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 20 Aug 2007, 13:18

Hall vs. Fitz I was described as being for the Australian middleweight championship. Fitz wins.

What date are you talking about? I can't see it

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 20 Aug 2007, 13:59

Jan 19, 1889. I found it and will be including a fight description in my upcoming Fitzsimmons book.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 20 Aug 2007, 14:56

As I said, according to Hogg the fight with Fogarty on Oct 17 1887 didn't happen, therefore, it's safe to say the fite with Fits on Jan 19 1889 was not a title fite as neither were titlist at the time.

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 20 Aug 2007, 15:11

Ah, but the local Australian papers did bill the 1889 fight as being for the Australian Middleweight Title. Here is the question. How did Hall become the Australian middleweight champion, before that, or even after getting KO'd by Fitz? When they had a rematch in early 1890, Hall was called the Australian middleweight champion.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 20 Aug 2007, 15:28

I think the confusion is due to how some historians interpret Colony .
British colony would mean Australia. Colony could also mean State.
Some of those fights could’ve been just that - State titles.

Anyhow, that’s enough from me. As I said, it would be best to write to John Hogg, as I'm not a historian nor do I have time nor interest in it.
Cheers

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 20 Aug 2007, 15:51

Thanks. Those are interesting points. Might be the case. However, what I have noticed in my research is that usually when it was a local type title they would say so...something like for the Queensland championship (what does that mean?), or the Victorian heavyweight, etc.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 20 Aug 2007, 21:54

Australia is a Federation of six states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania) and two territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory). Each state and territory has its own championships.

AntonS · Post by **AntonS** » 20 Aug 2007, 22:51

Yes, but in those days there were no States.

apollack · Post by **apollack** » 24 Aug 2007, 13:44

Just FYI, I went over my microfilm reels of the Referee, the local Australian paper and got it all figured out. I agree that Fitz v. Hall I was not for the true championship, although advertsed as being for the championship, but the second bout was for the title. I will discuss in my upcoming Fitz book how it all came to be. But in a nutshell, Jim Fogarty was most recognized as the champ, but after Hall kicked his ass in a 15 rounder (technically called a draw because there was no knockout), and Fogarty basically became a heavyweight, and Hall had been on a really lengthy win streak, the newsmen started calling Hall the champ. I have seen absolutely no reference to Hall and Fogarty meeting other than that 15 rounder.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 25 Aug 2007, 02:06

AntonS wrote:Yes, but in those days there were no States.

The States took over the names of the colonies at Federation. The titles carried over.