48 replies to this topic

[bleno]

Over at Damon Sasser's Publisher's Journal I posted a short blog dealing with Howard's fistic idols. Thought it might be fun for the fans of Howard's boxing yarns to see what his favorite boxers looked like, and learn a little about the fight game in Howard's time.

Brian

[guilalah]

Here's a link to the blog

Brian's entry, Feb 1, 2010

I assume after February this will go into the Journals archives.

[guilalah]

http://en.wikisource....Ring,_Apr_1926

Wikisource:LettersLetter to the The Ring magazine, April 1926
by Robert Ervin Howard
Here is my opinion on the greatest heavyweights of all time: Boxing reached its height between 1892 and 1905. That was the ring?s Golden Era. The culmination of perfection, the pinnacle of achievement, the greatest heavyweight of all time was James J. Jefferies. Records prove that. During his reign there flourished the greatest collection of heavyweights ever seen, and he was the greatest of all. He defeated all manner of boxers.
In Corbett he beat the fastest heavyweight and the cleverest boxer that ever lived; in Fitzsimmons the most effective hitter of any time; in Tom Sharkey, the greatest of all near champions. While Jefferies would not rank first in skill, speed or hitting ability, for all around prowess he was invincible.
Peter Jackson never saw the day that he could have beaten Jefferies; and the idea of Johnson beating Jefferies when the white man was at his best is ridiculous. Johnson lacked both the ability and the nerve. As for Sullivan and Dempsey, they would have fought themselves out punching Jefferies, and then have been defeated. If there ever was a man who might have won from Jefferies it was Corbett, when at his prime.
This is my rating of heavyweights: James J. Jefferies; James J. Corbett; Jack Dempsey; Peter Jackson; Bob Fitzsimmons; John L. Sullivan; Tom Sharkey; Kid McCoy; Sam Langford; Jack Johnson; Louis Firpo and Jess Willard.

Robert E. Howard
Cross Plains, Texas

[guilalah]

I've had the pleasure, in the last several years, of reading three books about James J Jeffries.

'A Man Among Men' by Kelly Nicholson is an attractive paperback by an author who obviously has great affection for his subject.

Jim Carney Jr.'s 'Ultimate Tough Guy' is a more recent biography by an author who admires Jeffries, though not uncritically. The book also prints a number of internet articles on Jeffries, and benefits from Mr. Nicholson graciously permitting Mr. Carney to incorporate parts of his own book.

Adam Pollack's 'In the Ring with James J. Jeffries' is a massively researched (over 600 pages) account of Jeffries ring career up till his retirement in 1905. (It is the fourth book in a series, the previous tomes dealing with John L Sullivan, James J Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons).

[Munthasem]

Well, if Howard lived some fifteen to twenty years longer I think he'd admire Rocky Marciano a lot. The guy never backed and never went out of steam in the irng, allways in top notch form, strong, raw strong, like the steel mill workers or dock workers would be and he won in every one out of his 49 professional fights fighting in an almost cavemen manner, clubbing and mauling his opponents to the defeat. Needless to say he knocked cold out 43 of his opponents. So I think Howard would simply eat this guy and everything about him.

[Fierro]

Agree on Marciano. So what do you think of Howard's rankings?

[Seejman]

His rankings haven't stood up well to the test of time, even within the group listed. Jack Johnson typically sits around #3 all-time (for heavyweights), after Ali and Louis, and his ranking is usually accredited to his technical ability as a defensive boxer. I find it hard to question Johnson's nerve too, in or out of the ring.

I'm a big fan of Sam Langford and his story, but he was a middleweight fighting outside his class with most of the heavies (Fitzsimmons was similar but with a freaky build). Willard and Firpo are where they belong, at the bottom (they'd fit in well with today's clown parade of heavies).

It pretty much reads like a fan letter from a 20 year-old, which by the date of the letter, REH was at the time.

There are a few boxing simulations (as opposed to video games) for computers and the tabletop, I have some of them and will try a quick set of match-ups when I get a moment.

Chris

[guilalah]

Would like to say, concerning Marciano, that many opponents said he was harder to hit than what he looked to be from outside the ring. Roland LaStarza, after challenging Marciano for the title (he had a few years previous drawn with Marciano on rounds, loosing when a supplementary points system was applied to break a rounds-draw) said that Marciano had improved "300%" defensively.








Sam Langford KO'd quite a number of fighters in the 210-240 range -- Sam McVey, Battling Jim Johnson, Harry Wills, Big Bill Tate, as well as George Godfrey in sparring.


Willard and Firpo belong at the bottom of Howards list. However, both were durable. Firpo was a hard puncher, Willard had a good jab and could upper-cut on the retreat. Incomplete fighters, but not without real assets.

I think people who saw both Jeffries and Johnson were split over who was better.

A 'I couldn't have beat him at my best' quote by a disconsolate post-Reno Jeffries (refering to Johnson) gets trotted around a lot, but there don't seem to be any citations for this quote before the mid-1940's, long after their 1910 fight. Ken Burns Johnson docu 'Unforgivable Blackness' shows a quote, but blacks out any context that would let one identify the source.

[Fierro]

Remarkable clips. Thanks.

[guilalah]

I agree that Howard underestimated Johnson a bit. I can think of three reasons: 1) he might have been a bit pissy over Johnson having defeated his favorite, Jeffries; 2) he might have been put off by Johnson's ultra-cautiousness and defensive-mindedness -- in Pollacks 'In the Ring with James J Jeffries', the author includes a review of a Jack Johnson-Frank Childs six rounder (Childs, Bob Armstrong and Denver Ed Martin were probably the three best black heavies of the period between Peter Jackson and Jack Johnson), that roughly read 'Four punches landed in the entire fight and, as Johnson landed them, he got the decision'); 3) Howard may have been taking his cues from Corbett -- obviously, he admires Corbett highly -- and Corbett, though admitting Johnson a great defensive fighter, was a bit cool in his assesment of Johnson (I've seen Corbett's rankings, made during Dempsey's reign, and he put Johnson beneath Langford; Corbett also was known to complain that Johnson sometimes declined to dominate mediocre opposition).

Edited by guilalah, 03 February 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[Sailor Costigan]

Hi Brian - I think it's great that you've continued to raise awareness of Howard's boxing interests. Finn and I have long discussed what boxer Costigan would most likely resemble and I think ol' Finn got it right when he suggested 'Sailor' Tom Sharkey.

[Sailor Costigan]

Hi there Seejman
I'm a little confused - what part of his list has not stood the test of time? The boxers listed were all held in high esteem at the time the list had been written. While history will not recognize Firpo and Willard as all time greats they were, for their time, exciting and powerful fighters who had the good fortune to have boxed during the Jazz Age. This era produced some of history's most memorable bouts due to the emergence of mass media and the radio, colorful sports writers the likes of which we will never see again, political and cultural clashes that reshaped America over night and were best understood by the common man through the crucible of boxing. Willard's victory over Johnson was an amazingly powerful achievement to the American psyche - Firpo's rise to the top was the stuff of legends and played on the cultural ignorance of times - I could go on but suffice it to say that boxing has always been as much about perception and momentary glory than it will ever be about simple statistics. Howard's list is fascinating in that it runs the gamut of iconic warriors, each representing a unique American viewpoint that crosses cultural lines that not everyone had the balls to cross in the mid 1920s. Quite frankly, the list is one that stirs the imagination as much now as it did back then. The inclusion of Langford, Jackson and McCoy solidify Howard's boxing IQ credibility. Nevermind that Langford and McCoy were better suited to other weight classes; that they fought most of their most meaningful bouts at heavyweight cannot be overlooked. Take a gander at who they fought - and beat - at the heavyweight division and you'll see that their inclusion in 1926 was spot on.

Having said all of that I do want to acknowledge your obvious interest in Howard's boxing fiction. I'm of the opinion that this interest will get you closer to understanding Howard as a writer and a person - and that is a good thing. Keep on reading Seejman and well met, my friend!

Chris Gruber

His rankings haven't stood up well to the test of time, even within the group listed. Jack Johnson typically sits around #3 all-time (for heavyweights), after Ali and Louis, and his ranking is usually accredited to his technical ability as a defensive boxer. I find it hard to question Johnson's nerve too, in or out of the ring.

I'm a big fan of Sam Langford and his story, but he was a middleweight fighting outside his class with most of the heavies (Fitzsimmons was similar but with a freaky build). Willard and Firpo are where they belong, at the bottom (they'd fit in well with today's clown parade of heavies).

It pretty much reads like a fan letter from a 20 year-old, which by the date of the letter, REH was at the time.

There are a few boxing simulations (as opposed to video games) for computers and the tabletop, I have some of them and will try a quick set of match-ups when I get a moment.

Chris

[bleno]

Hi Chris,

I totally agree with you and the Finnster that Sharkey is the model for Costigan. I won an old Sharkey photo on eBay the other day, and will use that for one of the boxing posts. He's in a suit and he's so damn stocky and strong he looks like a stuffed sausage. One of my best Howard memories was sitting on that boxing panel with you and Mark--good times!






Brian

[guilalah]

Tom Sharkey, Babe Ruth, James J Jeffries
(The image wouldn't display on our forum -- you can try the above link).




Tom Sharkey



Tom's famous chest tatoo.

In their second fight, Fitzsimmons came back to the corner after a rough first round with Tom and told his corner, 'Don't worry, I'm going to sink the ship!'

One thing I learned about Sharkey from Pollack's excellently researched books: Sailor Tom, aside from been game and tough, was also very fast. Observers refer to his speed near constantly -- it's not a 'gray area'.

It's well known Sharkey suffered considerably in the last few rounds of his challenge of Jeffries. Not so well nown is that, after that fight, Sharkey fought Gus Ruhlin, a fighter he had once KO'd early, and took a horrible beating, being Ko'd several times enrout to being put down six times, the last for keeps, in the fifteenth round.

One unfortunate fight for Tom Sharkey was his 1902 no-contest with Peter Maher. Just prior to the contest the local police informed the fighters that anything more than an exhibition of skill would get them arrested. Neither of these guys was a Corbett -- Sharkey was a rough as it got, and Maher was a 19th C Earnie Shavers -- so neither had much to show, and the referee brought the bout to an early close. This greatly (and unfairly) hurt Sharkey's reputation with the public, who were not informed of the constraits under which the fighters were performing.

Edited by guilalah, 08 February 2010 - 08:01 PM.

[Libaax]

Even to casual boxing fan like me Johnson has stood out the test of time better than the other guys mentioned before him by REH. Johnson is legendary for many reasons,the number of fights in his hole career,the difficulties of his times for a boxer like him. I saw a great documentary about him.

Edited by Libaax, 07 February 2010 - 08:27 PM.

[guilalah]

Hi, Libaax

I do agree Howard underrated Johnson. I'm curious, though, about your statement (my italics) "Even to casual boxing fan like me Johnson has stood out the test of time better than the other guys mentioned before him." I think the casual boxing fan of today is actually far more likely to know about and appreciate the merits of Johnson than those of Sullivan, Peter Jackson, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries or Langford.

[Mark Finn]

The Johnson documentary is great, no doubt, but prior to that documentary, most of the black heavyweight fighters prior to Joe Louis were only known to die-hard enthusiasts. I can tell you, as someone who has extensively researched Tom Sharkey for about a year and a half now, that there's not a lot of sources out there for the Golden Age of Boxing. The vast majority of the books are out of print, and many of them are over 50 years old. In modern research circles, there's only a handful of books available--and more often than not, they lean heavily on newspaper accounts of each fight. This isn't a bad thing, but it DOES illustrate the lack of secondary texts and materials that are available. When fighters retire, unless they wrote a book, they pretty much dropped off of the map of popular consciousness. They still do, to this day, even in our media-saturated world.

Rankings are subjective. They always have been, and always will be. At a time when black fighters were still not getting a fair shake, I think it's interesting and telling that Howard included both Jackson and Johnson in his list. I love that he calls Sharkey the greatest of all near-champions. The fact that he includes him in the letter is also deliberate and interesting. Of course, Howard's standards were just that--his own. Sharkey and McCoy were known for devastating punches and rough fighting. It's interesting that they should be on the same list as Corbett.

Aw, well. It's academic, anyway. I'd bump Johnson further up on the list, put Jeffries and Sharkey side by side, and leave off Firpo. But that's just me. Everyone's got their take.

[Libaax]

Hi, Libaax

I do agree Howard underrated Johnson. I'm curious, though, about your statement (my italics) "Even to casual boxing fan like me Johnson has stood out the test of time better than the other guys mentioned before him." I think the casual boxing fan of today is actually far more likely to know about and appreciate the merits of Johnson than those of Sullivan, Peter Jackson, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries or Langford.

I meant im interested in boxning history,old fighters but i dont really know anything about famous boxers,champions before Marciano,Louis era.

I was actually a bit annoyed that i didnt know someone like Johnson by name before the documentary.

I havent really been fan of boxning except mid 90s when Tyson was at his best before he went uh... astray.

I hope i can read the history,fights of the fighters mentioned in this thread,find documentaries.

[captblood]

Among those old-time greats, forgotten or otherwise, I'd put Joe Choynski high on the list. He owned a KO over Jack Johnson.

[guilalah]

captblood
Among those old-time greats, forgotten or otherwise, I'd put Joe Choynski high on the list. He owned a KO over Jack Johnson.

If I could have a dinner talking boxing with one boxer who ever lived, it would be Joe Choyinski. Pretty incredible, the list of fighters he got in the ring with, whether sparring, exhibitions or contests.

Mark Finn
When fighters retire, unless they wrote a book, they pretty much dropped off of the map of popular consciousness.

Yes, Corbett did write a bio., 'The Roar of the Crowd'. Too many secondary sources rely uncritically on Corbett's version of his first challenge of Jeffries. To hear Corbett, you'd think he was pitching a shutout till Jeffries got lucky in the 23rd (of 25) rounds. Corbett did give a superb performance, but reports of the fight indicate that it was a lot closer than Corbett would have one believe.

Edited by guilalah, 09 February 2010 - 09:55 PM.