Page 1 of 1

Ruby Rob robbed of his livelihood

Posted: 03 Apr 2017, 08:10
by APerno
.
Robert Fitzsimmons v New York State Athletic Commission et al., January 27th 1914

The plaintiff on December 24, 1913, entered into a contract with the Atlantic Garden Athletic Club, wherein he agreed, in consideration of 45% of the gross receipts received by the club from said contest, to box any person deemed suitable by the parties to the contract. . . .

The State Athletic Commission, after discussing the question of Bob Fitzsimmons appearing, in its various angles, have decided unanimously it is for the best interests of the boxing game that he should not be permitted to box in this State, . . .

The affidavits submitted on behalf of the defendants show that the plaintiff is 51 years of age and that, in the opinion of the members of the Commission and of the physician whom they consulted; the plaintiff is incapacitated by reason of his age and physical condition from competing in a boxing contest. . . .

The plaintiff asserts that said order deprives him of his right to pursue a lawful calling without "due process of law" and deprives him of his "liberty," . . . [furthermore] that it impairs the obligations of the plaintiff's contract with the Atlantic Garden Athletic Club . . .

Liberty is a word with a double meaning. In a negative sense it means freedom from restraint. In a positive sense it secures freedom by the imposition of restraint. It is in this positive sense that the State in the exercise of its police powers promotes the freedom of all by the imposition of such restraints upon some as are deemed necessary to secure the general welfare. In view of the character of the occupation in which the plaintiff is engaged, he has the right to pursue it only insofar as the State authorizes him so to do. . . .

I conclude that the Commission had jurisdiction to make the order against which the plaintiff complains . . . there is no ground for interference by a court of equity with the operation of the order of the Commission.

Motion denied.

Two days later, at Williamsport, Pennsylvania Ruby Robert won a six round newspaper decision over KO Sweeny; Fitzsimmons scored three knockdowns. :box:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19148461 ... TIC%20COMM.

Re: Ruby Rob robbed of his livelihood

Posted: 03 Apr 2017, 15:49
by Ambling Alp II
It is a tricky question. Normally a 51-year old is not going to be able to compete against a much younger fighter. However, Fitzsimmons obviously was not just any fighter. Perhaps more importantly, his opponent was making his pro debut. He probably should not have been in the ring himself.

Re: Ruby Rob robbed of his livelihood

Posted: 03 Apr 2017, 20:02
by APerno
Ambling Alp II wrote:It is a tricky question. Normally a 51-year old is not going to be able to compete against a much younger fighter. However, Fitzsimmons obviously was not just any fighter. Perhaps more importantly, his opponent was making his pro debut. He probably should not have been in the ring himself.

Yes to both - I suspect 51 back then is more like 61 today, not to mention how beat up he must have been - he had one more fight, another debut, which he fought to a draw and then quit. - What interested me about the court decision is that it is still likely the main precedent which allows State commissions to ban fighters at their discretion. - A few years back there was quite an ugly scene when a (one eyed) Arron Pyror was trying to make a comeback, he was refused by several States - he also tried suing but it got him nowhere.

Re: Ruby Rob robbed of his livelihood

Posted: 08 Apr 2017, 09:51
by Chuck1052
It was a different time in the United States over one hundred years ago. In fact, a number of states had a maximum age limit for boxers as recently as about 45 years ago. The age limits for boxers were abolished when they ran afoul of the new discrimination laws.

- Chuck Johnston