49 rounds, 46 kd's, 3.5 hours long

Not much footage of Jeanette's fights but from what I've heard and read, he was a great fighter who never got his shot. Fighters were unbelievable back then with the ability to go so many rounds.

What constituted a round in those days is different to our timed rounds today. One round would be until a man was unable to continue or knocked down/out. It was a brawl until you gave up. If you fell from exhaustion, they'd pick you up, dust you off....and you go again. If you fall on your face 5 seconds in... dust you off... go again. It was completely different to todays boxing rules. Not Queensbury Actually that particular Jeannette/McVey fight was fought with timed rounds, my friend, and it was considered a Queensberry rules fight, although the rules were ammended a bit to make it a finish fight. The two fighters agreed to a finish fight because of the controversy surrounding their previous fight a couple months before, where the decision was originally given to Jeannette after 20 rounds of fighting only to be changed a short time later to McVey getting the decision, which outraged not only Jeannette, but plenty of others who attended the fight, as well. Also worth noting that their were rumours after that 20 round fighting stating that the two fighters never gave their best, so to squelch those rumours and to end the controversy surrounding their previous fight, the two fighters agreed to ammend the rules a little and agree to go at it til there was a definate winner. The set of rules you are talking about were the London Prize Ring rules, which stated that a round ended when one (or both) of the fighters were downed, but those rules were well extinct by the time 1909 came around, as some sources state that the last fight fought under the rules you described was the infamous Sullivan/Kilrain fight from 1889 (their might've been other fights after that under LPR rules, but regardless, they were long gone by the time 1909 rolled around). But anyways, here's a short writeup of that fight as appeared in newspapers around the states, with this particular quote taken directly from the New York Tribune, Apr 18th, 1909; "Paris, Apr. 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, tonight 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 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." The NY Times also printed that in their Apr 18th, 1909 edition of their paper, and then added on to it by listing some "other long glove fights on record", signifying that this fight was fought with gloves. Also, some simple math should be able to tell you that it was fought with timed rounds (49 x 3 = 147 + another 49 mintues for the rest period...that's somewhere in the vicinity of just being short of the three and a half hours that they reported was fought). But if you don't believe that, I do have another extensive account of the fight, and to give you some hints at it being fought with timed rounds, here's a few quick quotes from it (it's way too long to type out in it's entirety); "at the count of eight the bell rang", "the forty-second round saw McVey go down seven times", and quotes of that nature, which obviously means it wasn't fought using the LPR rules. The reports also state that "at the opening of the forty-ninth round, McVey's face is utterly dehumanized, save for an expression of helpless agony", which alludes to his face being cut up in multiple places, his nose being busted in two places, as well as both of his eyes reportedly swollen completely shut. Also, it's worth noting that both fighters required oxygen during the fight, as well as after the fight when both were carried away with the oxygen attached to them. I'm babbling so I'll stop here, and just say that there were plenty of fights fought under MoQ rules (timed rounds and gloves) during the early 1900's that were scheduled for upwards of 45 rounds, and some even came close to reaching that mark (e.g. Gans/Nelson, Wolgast/Nelson, etc.). The Jeannette/McVey fight was said to be the longest MoQ fight of the 20th century, though, and it's special rules regarding it being a "finish fight" helped it achieve that status.

Well, it is amazing for them to go that long, but do you think they threw half as many punches as they do now? They would clearly pace themselves. easily half as many punches thrown, and all spazzy arm punches.

can someone explain to me how its possible all these old fighters fought so many rounds yet our atheletes today who are supposed to be physically superior can barely last 12 rounds? what am i missing?Well, it is amazing for them to go that long, but do you think they threw half as many punches as they do now? They would clearly pace themselves.

Who cares about the length of the round, they fought for 3 and a half hours!

Reminds me of Mr. Burns: Oh, hogwash! Why, I once watched Gentleman Jim Corbett fight an Eskimo fellow bare-knuckled for a hundred and thirteen rounds! Back then, of course, if the fight lasted less than fifty rounds, we demanded our nickel back! hahahahhahahahahaha yeahhhhhhhhhh

Sam Langford

keep in mind that these guys had ZERO technique, and there gloves were thinner then MMA gloves are now. Any of the fighters today could go 49 of those rounds. Much of the fight was spend standing in frong of eachother, swinging amatuerish arm punches and spent very little energy

I wonder how slow those guys were going in the last rounds. I mean they were probably being held up by each other. That's crazy when you think about it and really an amazing encounter.

I think we just need some more old school, Ann Wolf-tie a heavy bag to the back of a truck- type method of training. i'm scared of anne wolf.

I think we just need some more old school, Ann Wolf-tie a heavy bag to the back of a truck- type method of training. It worked for James Kirkland.

this makes sense i remember hearing how those native americans used to be able to run for miles and miles without gettin tired i think today were are faster and stronger, but endurance/stamina-wise they were superior It was the Inca messenger runners who would run messages from city to city.. their lung capacity and endurance was insane.. they didn't even stop for brakes.

i think part of it had to do with the social and industrial climate of those times. technology was barely advancing enough to make lives easier therefore, people were just really tough back then. a lot of the jobs that we have robotic machines doing today were manually done back then. I think we, as society, have just become soft and our genetic make up has evolved into a physically or mentally weaker state. this makes sense i remember hearing how those native americans used to be able to run for miles and miles without gettin tired i think today were are faster and stronger, but endurance/stamina-wise they were superior

i dont mean genetically i mean with todays knowledge of sports nutrition and strength training you would think our atheletes are stronger, faster etc. look at kobe or chris paul and compare them to basketball players in the 20s. or our football players today The difference is the type of fight and how the sport has changed. Knowing a fight can go as long as it has to slows the pace down a lot and conserving energy becomes huge. Think of watching somebody in their physical prime fight like B-Hop did against Calzaghe or something. Somebody could fight that type of fight for many, many rounds.

Jean-Claude Van Damme is one of the worst dancers I've ever seen. dont hate him cause hes beautiful http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/dammedance.gif

How are they physically superior?? people of then are the same as people of now.. Unless evolution is making humans stronger I wouldn't see why or how we are supposed to be stronger then athletes of then. Only difference is that there weren't roids back then.. i dont mean genetically i mean with todays knowledge of sports nutrition and strength training you would think our atheletes are stronger, faster etc. look at kobe or chris paul and compare them to basketball players in the 20s. or our football players today

used to be? Blasphemy People don't watch the new episodes and claim they have fallen off.. they had a low period but a lot of the new shit I have watched is starting to come up again.

can someone explain to me how its possible all these old fighters fought so many rounds yet our atheletes today who are supposed to be physically superior can barely last 12 rounds? what am i missing? i think part of it had to do with the social and industrial climate of those times. technology was barely advancing enough to make lives easier therefore, people were just really tough back then. a lot of the jobs that we have robotic machines doing today were manually done back then. I think we, as society, have just become soft and our genetic make up has evolved into a physically or mentally weaker state.

LMAO damn that show used to be comedy gold. used to be? Blasphemy

can someone explain to me how its possible all these old fighters fought so many rounds yet our atheletes today who are supposed to be physically superior can barely last 12 rounds? what am i missing? How are they physically superior?? people of then are the same as people of now.. Unless evolution is making humans stronger I wouldn't see why or how we are supposed to be stronger then athletes of then. Only difference is that there weren't roids back then..