Tom Sharky vrs Jim J. Jeffries(1899)

Brutu · Post by **Brutu** » 24 Mar 2007, 17:45

The fight took place November.1899 at Coney Island.
Reportly it was brutal.
It went the full 25 rounds.
Jeffries won on points.
Tom Sharky suffered 3 broken ribs and severe face lacerations.
Jeffries dislocated his elbow and lost 20 pounds as a result of the intense heat from the overhead lamps to film the bout(the ref had to wear a hat)
Is this fight avaible to watch on youtube?
Also do all 25 rounds still exist on film?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 18:14

Jeffries fought with an injured left elbow.

Jeffries injured his elbow BEFORE the fight when a wrestler at a gym threw a heavy medicine ball at Jeffries unexpectedly as he was walking by.
Jeffries threw up his arm and hurt his elbow badly in stopping the medicine ball.

Jeffries fought without his main weapon--his left hook.
He could still throw a stright left at times, but not a hook.

So Jeffries concentrated on right hands to the body as Sharkey came in.

I have some rounds of the camera hidden in the cigar box filming of the fight.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 24 Mar 2007, 20:47

This was a very violent fight, even by the accepted standards of the day. If you watch the surviving footage closely you'll see every foul in the book - headbutting, forearms to the face, kidney punching, and blows to the throat, and that's just in the 15 minutes I've seen. The injury to Jeffries' left elbow is evidenced by the footage as well, as there is an almost complete lack of left-handed offense by Big Jeff.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 21:57

UpWithEvil wrote:This was a very violent fight, even by the accepted standards of the day. If you watch the surviving footage closely you'll see every foul in the book - headbutting, forearms to the face, kidney punching, and blows to the throat, and that's just in the 15 minutes I've seen. The injury to Jeffries' left elbow is evidenced by the footage as well, as there is an almost complete lack of left-handed offense by Big Jeff.

blows to the throat
Blows to the throat are impossible if a fighter keeps his chin down.
Any barely competent fighter knows that.

forearms to the face,
If you want to see forearms to the face, take a look at the Ali-Jimmy Young fight. At the end of every clinch desperate Ali tried to hit Young in the face with his forearm or elbow.
Of course Don King's stooge "referee" never took a point away from Ali for that.

kidney punching
Not a foul at all.
One of Sugar Ray Robinson's specialties was a long, circular right hand to the body as he came in quickly from long range which landed directly on the kidney.
Great body puncher Tony Zale certainly landed there at times, as would any great body puncher.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:02

gawd...does every thread have to have an Ali reference? I mean seriously...

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:14

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:gawd...does every thread have to have an Ali reference? I mean seriously...

Rufus,

Your poster brought up forearms to the face.

From now on if a foul is mentioned please specify that you do not want any mention of Ali's application of that foul on your threads.

The only "blows" Ali landed in the entire 15 round fight against Young were forearms to the face. And one of your posters wrote that he considers such forearms to the face "foul" and even "violent."

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:17

If I even recall Young fought a scared fight against Ali, everytime Ali would get an attack going Young would slip in between the ropes, so that Ali couldn't hit him---but yes Young did land the more punches.

And myself, if there was anything that was annoying about Ali, it was his penchant for pushing down on his opponents head/neck, even against limited Chuck Wepner he did it. To me thats not only annoying, but a foul.

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:48

blows to the throat
Blows to the throat are impossible if a fighter keeps his chin down.
Any barely competent fighter knows that.

Please bear in mind that these men were fighting with 5oz gloves and doing all manner of wrestling and hitting. The dainty etiquettes of our modern sportive techniques don't apply quite as much.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 23:17

John L. Sullivan vs Dominick McCaffery the two men wore 3oz gloves, hell I think Sullivan-Corbett was the same, if not a six ounce maximum.

These referees from those times didn't wince from bloodshed and foul tactics; Sharkey was a well known dirty fighter and a powerful man at that, using everything short of an iron maiden on his opponents.

It was an all out war back then, if a fight like Tyson-Lewis happened then or a Klitschko-Lewis, they would have booed that the fight was stopped and screamed how Tyson was a pansy for not being able to take it--these people broke bones, faces, egos and spirits and did it 365 days a year.

It was every man for himself and this was their life. Boxing wasn't called the 'Sport of Men' for nothing peoples, these people were for real.

robert.snell1 · Post by **robert.snell1** » 25 Mar 2007, 07:36

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:John L. Sullivan vs Dominick McCaffery the two men wore 3oz gloves, hell I think Sullivan-Corbett was the same, if not a six ounce maximum.

These referees from those times didn't wince from bloodshed and foul tactics; Sharkey was a well known dirty fighter and a powerful man at that, using everything short of an iron maiden on his opponents.

It was an all out war back then, if a fight like Tyson-Lewis happened then or a Klitschko-Lewis, they would have booed that the fight was stopped and screamed how Tyson was a pansy for not being able to take it--these people broke bones, faces, egos and spirits and did it 365 days a year.

It was every man for himself and this was their life. Boxing wasn't called the 'Sport of Men' for nothing peoples, these people were for real.

one of the best comments I have read , it sums up the facts very well

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 11:52

robert.snell1 wrote:
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:John L. Sullivan vs Dominick McCaffery the two men wore 3oz gloves, hell I think Sullivan-Corbett was the same, if not a six ounce maximum.

These referees from those times didn't wince from bloodshed and foul tactics; Sharkey was a well known dirty fighter and a powerful man at that, using everything short of an iron maiden on his opponents.

It was an all out war back then, if a fight like Tyson-Lewis happened then or a Klitschko-Lewis, they would have booed that the fight was stopped and screamed how Tyson was a pansy for not being able to take it--these people broke bones, faces, egos and spirits and did it 365 days a year.

It was every man for himself and this was their life. Boxing wasn't called the 'Sport of Men' for nothing peoples, these people were for real.

one of the best comments I have read , it sums up the facts very well

Billygoat Holyfield would have been disqualified for his billygoating against Tyson in earlier, more legitimate eras of boxing.

See the film of the Jack Johnson-Fireman Jim Flynn fight, where Flynn lost on a foul.

In earlier times, Ali would have lost a point for hitting on the break the first time he did he tried to smash Jimmy Young across the face with his forearm.

Hitting on the break was a topic of great discussion by the seconds and managers and the referee before the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight and onward.

Hitting a fighter while he was down would result in immediate loss on a foul in earlier, more legitimate times of boxing.
See Benny Leonard vs. Jack Britton.

In comparison, in more recent times Mike Tyson hit Frank Bruno while he was down and "referee" Richard Steal stood by and smiled.
Who was the British middleweight who hit Iran Barkley while he was down MORE THAN ONCE and was allowed to get away with that?

Sugar Ray Leonard hit on the break and after the bell in every fight he had.

Ali used numerous blatant fouls to try to weaken his opponents. And his stooge referees never even warned him.
The reason Ali looked so bad against Jimmy Young is that Young negated all of Ali's fouls. As a result Ali was forced to box legitimately (except for his forearms to Young's face as clinches were broken). With Ali forced to box legitimately, Young exposed Ali as a mediocre heavyweight who didn't have a clue how to fight a counterpuncher.

Leonard hit low three times in the Hagler fight, "Referee" Richard Steal never even warned him.
Lightweight champion Ad Wolgast lost the lightweight title to Willie Ritchie on a foul when he hit Ritchie low.
Battling Nelson lost to Joe Gans on a foul when he hit low in the 42nd round in 1906.

Larry Holmes made a career out of thumbing his opponents.
In fact the winning "blow" in Holmes' fight with Scott LeDoux and also with Scott Frank was a thumb to the eye.
And the clueless modern "news" media covering each fight ridiculed each Holmes opponent for complaining.

Roberto Duran thumbed Devey Moore right at the start of their fight in Duran's "win" over Moore. The officials did nothing.

Marvin Hagler thumbed Roldan in the first round, as soon as he found out that Roldan was too strong for him.

Ali got Ernie Terrell in a headlock in the third round of their title fight and dragged Terrell's face against the middle rope.
After the fight the doctor who examined Terrell in the dressing room said Terrell had a rope burn on his face going into his eye.

In his sparring Michael Spinks practiced hitting with his elbow at the end of a left hook and also as a "follow through" on a right uppercut.
Michael Spinks "knocked out" Marvin Johnson with an elbow to the chin.

The examples I give are a drop in the bucket as compared to what went on in the Don King-Larry Hazzard era.

So much for your "cleaner" more recent times of boxing.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Mar 2007, 12:14

As 'bad' as you make it out to be, Gran, no offense, I don't think nobody around today or in the last 20-30yrs could have been able to have fought like Sullivan/Jefferies/Sharkey and the old timers did. They did every which way but lose, they ate, drank, slept and breathed boxing and salivated just at the thought of destroying their man.

Some guy gets head butted today its just the end of the world...in the case of Flynn and Johnson, Flynn headbutted Johnson 9 times or so deliberately, holding on to Johnson and slamming his skull into Johnson's for all he was worth---but the referee allowed it---and Johnson just shrugged it off.

For all Ali's tricks of thumbing, pushing down on peoples necks and forearm shots, that's mere childs play compared to the 'real' days of the sport.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 13:05

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
in the case of Flynn and Johnson, Flynn headbutted Johnson 9 times or so deliberately, holding on to Johnson and slamming his skull into Johnson's for all he was worth---but the referee allowed it---.

I suggest you get the film of the fight, Rufus.

It is easily available.

The referee stopped the fight each time Flynn did that, and warned Flynn.

Flynn eventually lost the fight on a foul.

UNLIKE our modern billygoat Holyfield

who is credited with two "wins" over Tyson for his billygoat exhibitions.

And praised by the clueless for his "wins."

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 14:06

I hate to change the subject....but I'm curious...granberry you have a lot of facts at your disposal and you seem willing to share them and interpret them in colorfully argumentative ways.......mostly as counterpoints I've noticed.

So I'm led to this question. Can you give some well known examples (lets say 3) of boxing taking place on the up and up, under fair conditions where the outcome was just as you would have liked to have seen it? Examples of boxing at it's best from your perspective. Where the fighters, the officials and perhaps the media got it right. Another thing I might ask is name perhaps 3 HW or MW championship reigns that played out with justice and reasonablity based on fighters performance. Maybe where even the general public perceptions were not too far off target.

These are not trick questions.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:13

BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to change the subject....but I'm curious...granberry you have a lot of facts at your disposal and you seem willing to share them and interpret them in colorfully argumentative ways.......mostly as counterpoints I've noticed.

So I'm led to this question. Can you give some well known examples (lets say 3) of boxing taking place on the up and up, under fair conditions where the outcome was just as you would have liked to have seen it? Examples of boxing at it's best from your perspective. Where the fighters, the officials and perhaps the media got it right. Another thing I might ask is name perhaps 3 HW or MW championship reigns that played out with justice and reasonablity based on fighters performance. Maybe where even the general public perceptions were not too far off target.

These are not trick questions.

Happy to answer you, buzz.

Both Ali-Liston fights were completely on the level.

As was the Billy Fox-Jake LaMotta fight.

The refereeing in the Ad Wolgast-Mexican Joe Rivers fight was completely legitimate.

I also like when referee Arthur Merchante stuck his fingers in Joe Frazier's eye in the 10th round of the first Frazier-Ali fight.

Not to mention that the same Merchante called a clear knockdown of Ali by Frazier in the very next round a "slip."

I have never seen better, more legitimate refereeing than that done by Merchante in that fight.

Except maybe when he kicked Ernie Shavers hard in the head when Shavers went down in the Shavers-Quarry fight which Merchante "refereed."

The scoring by the officials in the Jimmy Young-Ali fight and in the Eddie Cotton-Jose Torres fights was completely legitimate.

The refereeing of Rudy Ortega in the Snipes-Holmes fight was completly legitimate.

Of course anything "referee" Larry Hazzard did was completely legitimate.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:29

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to change the subject....but I'm curious...granberry you have a lot of facts at your disposal and you seem willing to share them and interpret them in colorfully argumentative ways.......mostly as counterpoints I've noticed.

So I'm led to this question. Can you give some well known examples (lets say 3) of boxing taking place on the up and up, under fair conditions where the outcome was just as you would have liked to have seen it? Examples of boxing at it's best from your perspective. Where the fighters, the officials and perhaps the media got it right. Another thing I might ask is name perhaps 3 HW or MW championship reigns that played out with justice and reasonablity based on fighters performance. Maybe where even the general public perceptions were not too far off target.

These are not trick questions.
Happy to answer you, buzz.

Both Ali-Liston fights were completely on the level.

As was the Billy Fox-Jake LaMotta fight.

The refereeing in the Ad Wolgast-Mexican Joe Rivers fight was completely legitimate.

I also like when referee Arthur Merchante stuck his fingers in Joe Frazier's eye in the 10th round of the first Frazier-Ali fight.

Not to mention that the same Merchante called a clear knockdown of Ali by Frazier in the very next round a "slip."

I have never seen better, more legitimate refereeing than that done by Merchante in that fight.

Except maybe when he kicked Ernie Shavers hard in the head when Shavers went down in the Shavers-Quarry fight which Merchante "refereed."

The scoring by the officials in the Jimmy Young-Ali fight and in the Eddie Cotton-Jose Torres fights was completely legitimate.

The refereeing of Rudy Ortega in the Snipes-Holmes fight was completly legitimate.

Of course anything "referee" Larry Hazzard did was completely legitimate.

I think I know what your trying to say and your position on each of these "events" but you have coded it fairly well. I take it you are on board with Richard Steele since that's one controversy you left out. Your appreciation of the writings of Lewis Carroll are also noted.

If by chance you really are a pure black and white thinker who feels the spirit of a discussion is useless I still may end up offering up some sort of contrite statement at some future point. I still think the questions you posed to me earlier were along the lines of "Did you use the knife or the gun when you without mercy murdered the chambermaid?...when In fact I wasn't even in that City at the time of the crime.

Okee Dokee then....I was hopin' to construct a bridge moment but you have either given up due to my obvious and admitted limitations OR you are a savant with a sense of humor that I for one can appreciate. As Collins mentioned perhaps it takes one to appreciate one. And though I now say "UNCLE" I am far more suspecting "TROLL".

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:35

BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to change the subject....but I'm curious...granberry you have a lot of facts at your disposal and you seem willing to share them and interpret them in colorfully argumentative ways.......mostly as counterpoints I've noticed.

So I'm led to this question. Can you give some well known examples (lets say 3) of boxing taking place on the up and up, under fair conditions where the outcome was just as you would have liked to have seen it? Examples of boxing at it's best from your perspective. Where the fighters, the officials and perhaps the media got it right. Another thing I might ask is name perhaps 3 HW or MW championship reigns that played out with justice and reasonablity based on fighters performance. Maybe where even the general public perceptions were not too far off target.

These are not trick questions.
Happy to answer you, buzz.

Both Ali-Liston fights were completely on the level.

As was the Billy Fox-Jake LaMotta fight.

The refereeing in the Ad Wolgast-Mexican Joe Rivers fight was completely legitimate.

I also like when referee Arthur Merchante stuck his fingers in Joe Frazier's eye in the 10th round of the first Frazier-Ali fight.

Not to mention that the same Merchante called a clear knockdown of Ali by Frazier in the very next round a "slip."

I have never seen better, more legitimate refereeing than that done by Merchante in that fight.

Except maybe when he kicked Ernie Shavers hard in the head when Shavers went down in the Shavers-Quarry fight which Merchante "refereed."

The scoring by the officials in the Jimmy Young-Ali fight and in the Eddie Cotton-Jose Torres fights was completely legitimate.

The refereeing of Rudy Ortega in the Snipes-Holmes fight was completly legitimate.

Of course anything "referee" Larry Hazzard did was completely legitimate.
I think I know what your trying to say and your position on each of these "events" but you have coded it fairly well. I take it you are on board with Richard Steele since that's one controversy you left out. Your appreciation of the writings of Lewis Carroll are also noted.

If by chance you really are a pure black and white thinker who feels the spirit of a discussion is useless I still may end up offering up some sort of contrite statement at some future point. I still think the questions you posed to me earlier were along the lines of "Did you use the knife or the gun when you without mercy murdered the chambermaid?...when In fact I wasn't even in that City at the time of the crime.

Okee Dokee then....I was hopin' to construct a bridge moment but you have either given up due to my obvious and admitted limitations OR you are a savant with a sense of humor that I for one can appreciate. As Collins mentioned perhaps it takes one to appreciate one. And though I now say "UNCLE" I am far more suspecting "TROLL".

Buzz, based on what you post, I don't take you seriously.

Isn't that OBVIOUS?

Save your "bridge moments" for someone else.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:38

Well on that we agree...I don't take my self all that seriously either.....certainly not as seriously as even you have chosen to take me.

However I'm quite sure you are aware of the error of your ways....and I know you will be working hard to improve....and the folks round here will be glad to lend a hand as you strive for greater awareness. and I think I speak for everyone that we all beam with pride as we watch you progress.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:49

BoxBuzz wrote:Well on that we agree...I don't take my self all that seriously either.....certainly not as seriously as even you have chosen to take me.

However I'm quite sure you are aware of the error of your ways....and I know you will be working hard to improve....and the folks round here will be glad to lend a hand as you strive for greater awareness. and I think I speak for everyone that we all beam with pride as we watch you progress.

Buzz, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER ON JEFFRIES-SHARKEY?

You have posted several times now on this thread without ever mentioning the topic of this thread.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 15:57

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Well on that we agree...I don't take my self all that seriously either.....certainly not as seriously as even you have chosen to take me.

However I'm quite sure you are aware of the error of your ways....and I know you will be working hard to improve....and the folks round here will be glad to lend a hand as you strive for greater awareness. and I think I speak for everyone that we all beam with pride as we watch you progress.
Buzz, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER ON JEFFRIES-SHARKEY?

You have posted several times now on this thread without ever mentioning the topic of this thread.

Hello again granberry! Glad you dropped back in! And thanks for asking....These are the types of threads I often prefer to read and soak in the information. It's important to realize what it is what one DOES NOT KNOW in order to honestly take in good, pertinent and new information as it arrives or is bantered about by those who have done the hard work of reading, studying and going over ancient historic documents which may reveal a new kernal of knowledge as yet undeciphered.

Me? I prefer the role of "color commentator" sometimes actually commenting on the process itself as is this case in point. Is there something I can do for you in that regard?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 26 Mar 2007, 18:28

Billy Fox- Jake LaMotta on the level????

what planet are u from, fight was a total fix.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Mar 2007, 18:43

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Billy Fox- Jake LaMotta on the level????

what planet are u from, fight was a total fix.

Irish in this case I think he is saying he agrees with that take, but he's being FECESTIOUS....i spell the word with clever intent.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 26 Mar 2007, 20:12

BoxBuzz wrote:
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Billy Fox- Jake LaMotta on the level????

what planet are u from, fight was a total fix.
Irish in this case I think he is saying he agrees with that take, but he's being FECESTIOUS....i spell the word with clever intent.

Surprised you didn't go with Facistious.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Mar 2007, 21:20

Tantum wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Billy Fox- Jake LaMotta on the level????

what planet are u from, fight was a total fix.
Irish in this case I think he is saying he agrees with that take, but he's being FECESTIOUS....i spell the word with clever intent.
Surprised you didn't go with Facistious.

He would have to show some sort of control to earn that title

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 26 Mar 2007, 21:47

BoxBuzz wrote:
Tantum wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote: Irish in this case I think he is saying he agrees with that take, but he's being FECESTIOUS....i spell the word with clever intent.
Surprised you didn't go with Facistious.

He would have to show some sort of control to earn that title

Buzz, I am still waiting for you to post something on Jeffries-Sharkey.

Or are you a troll?