BoxRec

On 12/26/1902, Battling Nelson was down 9 times. His opponent, Christy Williams, was down 42 times! That one is probably the record. Others?

The first one I thought of was McVey-Jeannette. McVey knocked Jeannette down 27 times. Jeannette knocked McVey down 11 times. Jeannette won by knockout in the 49th round.

Jennette would have been knocked out in the 16th but was saved by the bell. Had the fight been scheduled for 10, 12,15 or 20 rounds McVey probably would have won. Those are the breaks.

Lots of knockdowns in McVey-Jeannette is a myth, never happened.

There was one obscure old fight, six 3-minute rounds (Queensbery rules, not LPR), between Dandy Frank and Young Murphy, fought at St. Louis (MO) on March 23, 1886, where Frank had been knocked down approximately 37 times, according to report in local weekly Sporting News.

The knockdowns in the Jeannette-McVey fight were a myth? huh? Why would you say such a thing?
I have read about this from many different sources. I have never heard anyone question this. The fight happened on April 17, 1909 in Paris, France.

The correct number of knockdowns is up there on that bout's boxrec entry. It is based on three different next-day wires published in the US newspapers, and with local Le Figaro not mentioning such a thing as nearly fourty knockdowns, which it wouldn't abstain from writing about.

I would love to have seen the Jeanette, McVey, Langford fights.

Senya13 wrote:The correct number of knockdowns is up there on that bout's boxrec entry. It is based on three different next-day wires published in the US newspapers, and with local Le Figaro not mentioning such a thing as nearly fourty knockdowns, which it wouldn't abstain from writing about.

I think you are misinterpreting something. On Boxrec database,it listed some of the knockdowns in specific rounds, but it doesn't actually say that was all of the knockdowns. It is incomplete information. If you click in the book part on the boxrec database you will see that it says:

Joe Jeannette vs. Sam McVea
From Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
(Redirected from Fight:92379)
Jump to: navigation, search
1909-04-17 : Joe Jeannette beat Sam McVea by RTD in round 49 of 0
Location: Cirque de Paris, Paris, Paris, France

Jeannette was dropped 27 times, and McVea was dropped 11 times, including 7 knockdowns in the 42nd round. After 49 rounds, McVea coundn't continue because both of his eyes were swollen shut. ("The Boxing Register" James B. Roberts and Alexander G. Skutt)

Other sources that say there was that many knockdowns include:

"An Illustrated History of Boxing" by Fleischer and Andre ( It has a picture with a caption that says it was the 10th time McVey was down)

"The Encyclopedia of Boxing" by Gilbert Odd

"Boxing An Illustrated History" by Harry Carpentier.

Superb credibility.....I would have to say that these events did indeed take place. At this point it would seem that Senya has made a "mythtake".

Sure, trust more to those books written half a century later or more, than to next day reports in NY Sun, NY Tribune, Washington Herald (I repeat, different reports, not a reprint of the same slightly modified text), and in local Le Figaro. If you read those books you listed, they mention no knockdowns in the rounds where they actually had taken place. The books also fail to mention one detail the reports paid particular attention to - both fighters were breathing oxygen from oxygen bags in the breaks between the rounds.

As I recall, Senya is right. I don't have copies of the articles - nor have I read all of those Seyna cites - but as I recall, the ones that I've read do not report that many knockdowns.

There is a difference between primary sources of information - i.e., contemporaneous newspaper accounts - and secondary sources of information, into which catagory the Odd and Fleischer books fall.

raylawpc wrote:As I recall, Senya is right. I don't have copies of the articles - nor have I read all of those Seyna cites - but as I recall, the ones that I've read do not report that many knockdowns.

There is a difference between primary sources of information - i.e., contemporaneous newspaper accounts - and secondary sources of information, into which catagory the Odd and Fleischer books fall.

Agreed.

Also, I just looked up the picture in Pictorial History of Boxing, it says it is McVey being down for the 10th time, but if you look at this page (or any other photos of McVey and Jeannette), it is clear that it is McVey standing and Jeannette being down, not vice versa.

Pete Sanstol knocked Art Giroux down "no less than" ten times, during a bantam title bout, based upon reports cited here and here.

Senya13 wrote:Also, I just looked up the picture in Pictorial History of Boxing, it says it is McVey being down for the 10th time, but if you look at this page (or any other photos of McVey and Jeannette), it is clear that it is McVey standing and Jeannette being down, not vice versa.

It's not clear at all. You only see a blurry picture of the side of the fighter's standing face and it could be either one of them. You can't see the face of the fighter who is down. If anything, it looks more like Jeannette who is standing to me.

More importantly, just because the newspapers don't mention how many knockdowns there were, doesn't mean there weren't that many. How much do you really know about the writers of these newspapers? Have you much (or anything) else of what they have written?

Senya said "If you read those books you listed, they mention no knockdowns in the rounds where they actually had taken place."

That's not true. In the "Boxing Register", it says that McVey knocked Jeannette down in the first round, Jeannette was saved by the bell in the 16th, and was knocked down for the 21st time in the 17th round. It says that Jeannette "seized control" of the fight after the 19th round. It also says that Jeannette knocked McVey down 7 times in the 42nd round.
I found it hard to swallow that the Boxing Register made all of this up.

It would be nice if the books gave more detailed information. However, these aren't books on Jennette or McVey. They are all books on the history of boxing, covering 100 years of boxing. They don't give detailed round by round descriptions of specific fights.

However, they do mention that it was the 10th knockdown of McVey in the book by Fleischer and Andre. I find it hard to believe that they just made this up.

Fleischer and Andre's book first came out in 1959. There were still people alive who could have remembered this fight. If all those knockdowns didn't happen, there surely would have been controversy about this.

Four different books that have been cited mention the exact number of knockdowns. I am going to make it it 5. Rex Lardner's "The Legendary Champions" also claims that there is that many knockdowns.

It highly improbable that 5 different books written by different boxing historians would claim this if it's a myth.

Ultimately, you have to weigh what 5 sources said specifically happened versus what 4 sources didn't mention. Believe what you want, but it's going to take a lot more to convince me that it did not happen.

Ambling Alp wrote:Four different books that have been cited mention the exact number of knockdowns. I am going to make it it 5. Rex Lardner's "The Legendary Champions" also claims that there is that many knockdowns.

It highly improbable that 5 different books written by different boxing historians would claim this if it's a myth.

Not if those four books rely on the same incorrect information. Those books are secondary sources . . . and secondary sources that do not cite their primary sources.

BTW, the fact that these books aren't about Jeannette-McVey but are about boxing generally - as you also noted above - tends to make them less reliable. It is unlikely these authors checked out each fact in their books against primary sources. Its much more likely that they borrowed information from other secondary sources. In that case, mistakes keep right on repeating themselves.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Senya13 wrote:Also, I just looked up the picture in Pictorial History of Boxing, it says it is McVey being down for the 10th time, but if you look at this page (or any other photos of McVey and Jeannette), it is clear that it is McVey standing and Jeannette being down, not vice versa.

It's not clear at all. You only see a blurry picture of the side of the fighter's standing face and it could be either one of them. You can't see the face of the fighter who is down. If anything, it looks more like Jeannette who is standing to me.

Physical build and the haircut of the standing fighter is clearly McVey's, not Jeannette's. I just asked Clay Moyle about this, and he agrees with me that the standing fighter is clearly not Jeannette.

In general, a lot of those books rely on other secondary sources. There are very few books where the author relied mostly on primary sources, such as Adam Pollack's who didn't fully trust any secondary source and tried to verify everything with primary sources (at least where the main fighter is concerned, his opponents are usually described with secondary sources, it's understandable).

If I had to choose between boxing books (where some writers copy older books without their own research) or old newspaper reports I would go with the newpapers any time.

Woller

You can't assume that of the the books all didn't use primary sources. (It's also entirely possible that there were other newspaper reporters who covered this fight that did mention the high amount of knockdowns in this fight.)
In fact, it's quite possible that Fleischer himself was at the McVey-Jeannette fight himself. He could have also seen it on film. At the very least, he would have based his information on sources that he could trust.

It's highly improbable that Fleischer would have mentioned the 38 knockdowns if it didn't happen. Someone would have called him on it.

The books weren't all just repeating themselves. The Boxing Register had information that the others didn't.

I have never understood this blind faith some people seem to have in old newspaper accounts. You usually have no idea how reliable the writers are. If John Smith of the Daily Bugle says it happens one way, that doesn't mean it happened just like that.

Not only that, the newspaper articles don't even contradict what the books say. They just mentioned some rounds that there were knockdowns. That doesn't mean there wasn't more.
It also calls into question the competence of the newspaper writers. Any writer worth his salt would mention the total amount of knockdowns in a fight.

Again, the blurry picture in Fleischer's book doesn't look more like McVey than Jeannette. If anything I would guess it was Jeannette. This book has had many editions over the decades and they are still making the same "mistake"? Very doubtful.

Think of all of the things you are assuming:
-That there were no other newspaper accounts.
-That since the newspaper accounts that you are talking about doesn't mention all 38 knockdowns that they must not have happened.
-That none of the books used primary sources. (You simply don't know that.)
- That Fleischer said there were that many knockdowns in his book and somehow there wasn't the controversy that there should have been.
- You assume that writers of the newspapers who you don't know at all are more reliable than authors of books who do know much more about.

You would have to assume all that to believe that the knockdowns didn't happen. That's way too much for me.

Ambling Alp wrote:You can't assume that of the the books all didn't use primary sources. (It's also entirely possible that there were other newspaper reporters who covered this fight that did mention the high amount of knockdowns in this fight.)
In fact, it's quite possible that Fleischer himself was at the McVey-Jeannette fight himself. He could have also seen it on film. At the very least, he would have based his information on sources that he could trust.

It's highly improbable that Fleischer would have mentioned the 38 knockdowns if it didn't happen. Someone would have called him on it.

The books weren't all just repeating themselves. The Boxing Register had information that the others didn't.

I have never understood this blind faith some people seem to have in old newspaper accounts. You usually have no idea how reliable the writers are. If John Smith of the Daily Bugle says it happens one way, that doesn't mean it happened just like that.

Not only that, the newspaper articles don't even contradict what the books say. They just mentioned some rounds that there were knockdowns. That doesn't mean there wasn't more.
It also calls into question the competence of the newspaper writers. Any writer worth his salt would mention the total amount of knockdowns in a fight.

Again, the blurry picture in Fleischer's book doesn't look more like McVey than Jeannette. If anything I would guess it was Jeannette. This book has had many editions over the decades and they are still making the same "mistake"? Very doubtful.

Think of all of the things you are assuming:
-That there were no other newspaper accounts.
-That since the newspaper accounts that you are talking about doesn't mention all 38 knockdowns that they must not have happened.
-That none of the books used primary sources. (You simply don't know that.)
- That Fleischer said there were that many knockdowns in his book and somehow there wasn't the controversy that there should have been.
- You assume that writers of the newspapers who you don't know at all are more reliable than authors of books who do know much more about.

You would have to assume all that to believe that the knockdowns didn't happen. That's way too much for me.

With all due respect, Alp, have you seen the newspaper articles on this fight? I haven't seen all of them. (If memory serves, the account I read was one from the NY Sun - but I don't remember for sure.) Senya lists three separate reports in English and one report in French - all ringside reports. If those reports all agree and provide different details than the accounts in books written many years later (books which do not even bother to list their sources) then, excuse me, but I'll stick with the primary sources.

Contemporaneous writings by unbiased reporters are always more reliable than recollections recorded years from the event in question. Pardon me for being blunt, but that's just common sense.

I posted them on another two forums before, when I originally looked into the issue.

1909-04-18 New York Sun (page 10)
OXYGEN A FACTOR IN FIGHT.
--------
Jeannette Beats MacVey in Forty-ninth Round of Brutal Encounter.

Special Cable Dispatch to The Sun.

Paris, April 17.--By virtue of oxygen pumped into them by their seconds Jeannette and MacVey reeled and staggered through forty-eight rounds of a brutal and plucky fight here to-night. At the opening of the forty-ninth round MacVey, his face utterly dehumanized save for an expression of helpless agony that distorted what remained of his features, signified that he was unable to continue, whereupon the referee declared Jeannette the winner.

The fight was to a finish for a purse of 30,000 francs. About 2,500 persons, a large majority of them foreigners, were present, less than half the number who attended the match between the two on February 20, when MacVey got the decision after a fight that was under the general suspicion of being fixed. To-night's fight was on its merits, a fact that was testified to by the desperate condition of both combatants.

In the early rounds Jeannette's cleverness more than offset MacVey's superior hitting ability. This continued up to the nineteenth round, when after a singular episode in which Jeannette figured as a practitioner of forbearance, shaking hands with his helpless adversary, when he might apparently have punished him, he himself was knocked down three times in succession and was saved only by the bell.

For the next few rounds he survived only by the liberal employment of oxygen, the bell several times finding him all but helpless. To the surprise of all he displayed remarkable powers of recuperation, and in the last ten rounds simply made a chopping block of his opponent, although he lacked the power to deliver a knockout or even achieve a straight knockdown. MacVey's surrender, however, was justified as it was impossible in his condition that he could win.

The contest will not improve the standing of either man. MacVey showed himself slow and lacking in ability to take advantage of openings, while Jeannette demonstrated his lack of a winning punch. As an exhibition of recuperative power on Jeannette's part, however, and of endurance and stamina on MacVey's the contest was as remarkable as for its brutality. Curiously enough, brutal as it was, it was devoid of ferocity, the men exhibiting an almost friendly spirit throughout the fight.

The contest opened briskly, Jeannette using a straight left blow. He showed the greater cleverness until the fifth round, when Sam knocked him down, after which both fought cautiously until the fourteenth round, when Sam's right eye was swollen. At the sixteenth round Jeannette changed his style of fighting and forced Sam to the ropes. In the seventeenth round Joe seemed a certain winner unless for a chance knockout blow.

During the nineteenth round, when Jeannette seemed to have Sam at his mercy, Sam sent him down three times for nine, eight and six seconds. After this round oxygen was administered to Jeannette, and the dose was repeated in varying quantities until the last round. Jeannette went down again for six seconds in the twenty-first round. Sam had the best of it until the twenty-sixth round, when Joe went down again for eight seconds. He was down for the same time in the twenty-eighth round, when Sam was too weak to put him out.

In the thirty-third round both slipped on water in Joe's corner and went to the floor. Subsequently Joe cleverly fought Sam into the same corner, hoping to advantage by a similar accident. In the forty-second round and until the end oxygen was administered to Sam, but it did not seem to help him as it did Jeannette.



Then there's the AP report, printed in probably hundreds of newspapers all around the US, including NY Times (so that it's very-very easy for anyone interested to check up the facts to find this report, but most writers loved amazing stories like this and didn't care about the truth).
1909-04-18 New-York Tribune (page 12)
M'VEY MEETS DEFEAT.
--------
Beaten in Fiftieth Round of Fight by Jeannette.

Paris, April 17.--In the greatest prizefight witnessed in France since John L. Sullivan and Charley Mitchell drew at Chantilly in 1888, Joe Jeannette, of New York, defeated Sam McVey, of California, to-night in the fiftieth round of a finish fight. A great crowd witnessed a game exhibition of heavyweights, the contest lasting for three hours and a half. McVey had the better of the fight up to the fortieth round, and in both the twenty-first and the twenty-second round he had the New Yorker so groggy that he barely could keep on his feet.

Jeannette bore the punishment bravely, and came back in a wonderful manner. McVey had almost worn himself out after forty rounds, and by this time the New York fighter was coming back. By effective infighting he gradually beat the Californian and practically had him knocked out when the fight ended. McVey's seconds throwing up the sponge. Jeannette was the favorite in the betting, and the purse was $6,000.

It is understood that Jeannette now intends to issue a challenge to Jack Johnson for the championship of the world.




1909-04-18 The Washington Herald (page S1)
JEANETTE GETS THE DECISION.
------
McVey Fails to Respond in Forty-ninth Round.

Paris, April 17.--Joe Jeanette won the finish fight with Sam McVey to-night, the scrap going forty-ninth rounds. It was not a knockout, as McVey simply refused to respond at the beginning of the fiftieth round, declaring he "had enough." His seconds threw up the sponge. There has been intense rivalry between McVey and Jeanette, and challenges have been hurled right and left by both men, while they raked down the money in the music halls.

McVey was the favorite for to-night's fight, and he started off like a winner, putting Jeanette down for the count in the sixth round. It was a give-and-take encounter to the twentieth round, with McVey having all the better of it, but after that point he weakened, and was slammed all around the ring by Jeanette, who administered terrific punishment until the forty-ninth, when McVey quit cold. Both men were badly punished.




1909-04-19 Le Figaro (page 6)
BOXE

Le match Joë Jeannette-Sam Mac-Wea

Après un magnifique combat qui a duré deux heures vingt-quatre minutes, au cirque de Paris, Joë Jeannette, a été victorieux de Sam Mac-Vea qui, au 49c round, reconnaissant sa défaite, a serré la main de son adversaire et déclaré abandonner.




1909-04-19 The Kansas City Star (page 10)
THE OXYGEN TREATMENT HELPED.
--------
That is Why Jeanette Was Fresh After Forty-Nine Rounds of Fighting.

Paris, April 19.--The Jeannette-McVey fight was one of the most interesting contests that Paris has ever seen. Jeannette's victory was mainly due to the adoption of young Corbett's method of inhaling oxygen between rounds, the first time it had been resorted to on this side of the Atlantic. The efficency of the oxygen treatment was well illustrated by its effects on Jeannette, who revived quickly after being on the verge of a knockout no less than four times during the fight. His freshness at the end of the forty-ninth round was such as to astonish the veterans of the prizering, who gathered about the ringside.

An image of what it looked like, as shown by Jim Corbett on Young Corbett (in 1903-09-30 NY Evening World, page 10).

Yet again, I will say there is nothing in there that contradicts the books saying there was 38 knockdowns.

Have I see all the articles? I don't know, how many were there? Can you tell me how many newspaper articles have been written? Do you really know how many newspapers were there, including those that are defunct? For all we know, there were 50 newspapers covering this fight and some of them actually were thorough and told people how many total knockdowns there were. Golly, maybe the authors of books didn't just pick the #38 from thin air and hoped no one would who was at the fight would notice.

The newspaper articles here skip around, occasionally mentioning a few rounds.
However, they don't say how many total knockdowns there were. You can't assume that because an article doesn't mention a knockdown it didn't happen.

In some of the articles there was no mention of knockdowns. By your logic, there must not have been any knockdowns at all.

But wait, some of the articles mention some knockdowns. How can this be?

The New York Tribune describes it as great fight. The New York Sun says it wasn't. How can this be?

Is is just possible that some newspaper articles aren't that accurate and thorough?

Again, for the umpteenth time, you haven't shown anything contradicts the books saying that there was 38 knockdowns.

I can't believe anyone would doubt that Fleischer either got his information from a good source or saw the fight himself. He was around at the time covering fights.If he didn't see the fight himself he would have found out about it from a good source. Of course this point gets ignored time after time.

Common sense tells you that there would have been controversy if Fleischer was claiming that many knockdowns and there wasn't.

Common sense should also tell that if you have some sources that aren't clear either way, some sources that say there was that many knockdowns, and none that say their wasn't that many, then there probably were that many.

Not a single source out of three mentions any knockdowns of McVey at all. Not a single knockdown of supposed eleven. The reports don't quite agree on how many knockdowns of Jeannette there were and in which rounds, so I can accept the idea that not all of them listed, but certainly not anything like 27 either.

As for your comments about Fleischer getting his info from good sources... He has got so many mistakes in his books, quite often giving descriptions of events he has neither seen nor has read about, that it's ridiculous to think he was anything more than a journalist, not a historian in the sense it is usually understood. His main objective was how good does it sell, not how close to the truth it is. Like some fights I have seen several different next-day reports, and they completely contradict what he's saying, or like he's describing in rich details a fight that had taken place on one date according to him, and the fight was on completely different date and is described totally different by both local and non-local sources, which clearly shows he's talking about a fight he hasn't really seen primary sources of. His part about bareknuckle pugilism history is plain laughable, like he lists the correct sources, but lists the dates from the wrong ones instead, etc etc. One could easily compile a thick book by just listing factual mistakes and uneducated assumptions he has made in his "historical" books.

As noted in the article you reproduced, Corbett tried using oxygen against Jeffries. It didn't work out so well for him as it did Jeannette.

I disagree with much of what you guys are saying. You have continually chosen to ignore most of what I am saying, so I am going to leave it at that. Time to move on.