Tom O'Rourke: James J. Jeffries was Greatly Overrated. Agree or Disagree?

[travestyny]

Not an unreasonable analysis - it goes with I always felt, that the NYSAC was just another arm of Tammany and Tammany wanted the fight and they wanted it in New York. - That once he started making anti-mixed fight noise they would squeeze him out makes sense. I do definitely remember him making anti-mixed fight statements but don t know the time frame regarding tenure or removal. I remember me thinking that he was contradicting himself because he was part of the board that threatened Dempsey and then there he was denouncing the fight. Maybe he was just blowing smoke and fighting against it behind the scene. Again not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. I need to look back at it again.

I always agreed with you that if Kearns wanted the fight New York would have figured out how to make it happen. But I have already said a dozen times why I believe Kearns didn't want the fight.

And since I once again hi-jacked the thread and made it about Dempsey let me just say - good! - I really don't like the OP - it would be easy to post a half dozen sources calling Jefferies a courageous man.

To my mind, as sources, Delaney + Brady + Muldoon = Atlas + King + Sulaiman. Not someone I would quote about a fighter's character.

P.S. in regards to the ticket price dispute two things. I believe it was a New York law/ordnance, one of the types of bones Tammany would throw back to its constituency, guaranteed cheap seats. Second, it wasn't a deal breaker because Rickard swallowed it for the Firpo fight. A bigger crowd than the Carpentier fight ( 75K vs 90K) yet garnered less revenue ( I think.) It always made me wonder why he ( Rickard) didn't use Boyles Thirty Ac. in New Jersey for the fight. He staged Wills-Firpo there a year later.

Interesting stuff!


But...what do you have against Brady? And any thoughts on Tom O'Rourke? It was really his comment that stood out the most to me. Especially regarding why Jeffries were able to beat certain guys.


I have to say, I still don't understand the whole Tammany stuff being that they wanted the Dempsey/Wills fight just like the public did. Means it should have been even easier to make in NY. But that's for another discussion. I will note that you did hijack the thread and make it about Dempsey this time :P.

[Dr. Z]

Here we have it again - another trainer sharing with us how his guy wouldn't have become champion without him being there.

God these trainers with their bicycle tape and motivational speeches are just plain irreplaceable.

Imagine judging a fighter 30 years from now based on Teddy Atlas' evaluation.

BTW does anyone know if William Brady was included in the Reno fight with Johnson or was he left out of the big money? I wonder.

I wonder also if 50 years from now I was to post three articles stating that Triple G beat Canelo in their first fight would that make it a historical fact?

Oh, and Muldoon, here's a great guy who kept his name in that paper by calling John L Sullivan a bum when he wouldn't hire him as trainer for the Corbett fght, and then went on to become Tammany Hall's NYSAC b itch. Another great source.

So what have we got here is one more self aggrandizing trainer, a jilted manager, and a Tammanny Hall b ***** all calling a former HW Champion of the world a COWARD!

You know I once called a bunch of boxing promoters out of Chicago ( in 1927 no less) a bunch of amateurs and gangsters and I got lectured for being disrespectful.

I never once called a former champion a coward.

Some facts.

Tom O'Rourke was Irish, and managed fellow Irishman Tom Sharkey. He had the privilege of seeing Jeffries floor Sharrkey in both fights, though Sharkey made a game effort of it in the 2nd fight , which would have been stopped today as Sharkey has broken bones, a ear swollen the size of a g****fruit, shut eyes, and has out on his feet several times. What O'Rouke fails to mention was Jeffries after flooring Sharkey in round 2, hurt his left shoulder, taking Jeffries took out of the fight.

Jeffries ready to quit? Pure fantasy. Round 5 and 18 he says, not according to any news read.

As for Irish Billy Delaney an old time bare knuckle guy, he had bitter split from Jeffries. Delaney was in fact in Jim Corbett's corner after Corbett's loss to Jeffries, and in Jack Johnson corner screaming out instructions for Jeffries lone defeat to Johnson. Delaney or the reporter details are wrong. Firstly he fails to mention Jeffries was to fight Armstrong, a black fighter and O'Donnell on the same day! Who does that? Secondly he forgets to mention that Armstrong who was dropped by a body shot mostly likely lasted the distance because Jeffries broke his thumb in round one of their 10 rounder. Nice one Billy, a guy who had to have a piece of his lip cut off from a Joe Choynski punch, broke his thumb ( He did not wear wraps ) in a fight he finished, and suffered nasty cuts at the hands of Fitzsimmons, and went a grueling 25 rounds with Tom didn't have nerve? Lol. What a joke this guy is. Jeffries crime? His name wasn't " Seamus O'Riley " , I guess, and by beating the top Irish fighters of the day it clearly got to O'Rorke and Delaney. He wasn't like by Irish Tommy Ryan or Gene Tunney. Hmmmm...anyone notice a trend.

Furthermore, the information on the weights is wrong. Fitz wasn't 50 pounds lighter. More like 39 if you use the listed weights. Sharkey by the listed weights was only 32 rounds lighter, not 40 as this bogus article claims. Jeffries was also the bigger man vs.Johnson and an older and inactive is the article wants to be honest. There were no world class boxers Jeffries size in his active fighting day. If you notice, Jeffries lighter fighters gave Jeffries more trouble. Those 200 or more did not last very long. All 8 of them.

A pure junk article. Also it's obvious Travestyny has an issue. On post one he listed my name. He lists Jeffries name in threads he should not even be in. Look- Jeffries did not lose , but one fight and he was 6 years retired for that one His career doesn't need excuses. This " historian " , which I tend to doubt then posts a bogus article to smear things. See right through this clown I do. There is a reason for this being posted here, and it's his lame attempt to influence the uninformed.

I guess someone can tell Mr. Rourke, since Jeffries beat Sharkey twice, Corbett twice, and Fitzsimmons twice, all of whom are in the boxing hall of fame, that maybe they are greatly overrated since Jeffries is 6-0 vs these three men. How unlucky they are Jeffries didn't quit, right?

[billeau2]

Interesting stuff!


But...what do you have against Brady? And any thoughts on Tom O'Rourke? It was really his comment that stood out the most to me. Especially regarding why Jeffries were able to beat certain guys.


I have to say, I still don't understand the whole Tammany stuff being that they wanted the Dempsey/Wills fight just like the public did. Means it should have been even easier to make in NY. But that's for another discussion. I will note that you did hijack the thread and make it about Dempsey this time :P.

Tammany is one of those guys that can be profiled based on what was in his own interest. A guy like Muldoon, is a bit of a ghost by comparison. What motivated Muldoon, where he stood on mixed fights, takes a bit of digging deep. Muldoon was first and foremost a physical fitnesse guru with a respectable background in wrestling.

Tammany wanted the Irish and Black votes. he probably had a sit down with Jesus and asked himself: "Hummm? is it better to keep these two groups divided? or empower them?" If I was a Machivellian Prince, so to speak, and wanted to use other human beings as a means to a political end, I would probably want to keep the Irish and Black divided because with enough soliderity they might soon want one of their own in the political communities, which did in fact happen with the irish who became intrenched in the police forces, etc.

[travestyny]

Some facts.

Tom O'Rourke was Irish, and managed fellow Irishman Tom Sharkey. He had the privilege of seeing Jeffries floor Sharrkey in both fights, though Sharkey made a game effort of it in the 2nd fight , which would have been stopped today as Sharkey has broken bones, a ear swollen the size of a g****fruit, shut eyes, and has out on his feet several times. What O'Rouke fails to mention was Jeffries after flooring Sharkey in round 2, hurt his left shoulder, taking Jeffries took out of the fight.

Jeffries ready to quit? Pure fantasy. Round 5 and 18 he says, not according to any news read.

As for Irish Billy Delaney an old time bare knuckle guy, he had bitter split from Jeffries. Delaney was in fact in Jim Corbett's corner after Corbett's loss to Jeffries, and in Jack Johnson corner screaming out instructions for Jeffries lone defeat to Johnson. Delaney or the reporter details are wrong. Firstly he fails to mention Jeffries was to fight Armstrong, a black fighter and O'Donnell on the same day! Who does that? Secondly he forgets to mention that Armstrong who was dropped by a body shot mostly likely lasted the distance because Jeffries broke his thumb in round one of their 10 rounder. Nice one Billy, a guy who had to have a piece of his lip cut off from a Joe Choynski punch, broke his thumb ( He did not wear wraps ) in a fight he finished, and suffered nasty cuts at the hands of Fitzsimmons, and went a grueling 25 rounds with Tom didn't have nerve? Lol. What a joke this guy is. Jeffries crime? His name wasn't " Seamus O'Riley " , I guess, and by beating the top Irish fighters of the day it clearly got to O'Rorke and Delaney. He wasn't like by Irish Tommy Ryan or Gene Tunney. Hmmmm...anyone notice a trend.

Furthermore, the information on the weights is wrong. Fitz wasn't 50 pounds lighter. More like 39 if you use the listed weights. Sharkey by the listed weights was only 32 rounds lighter, not 40 as this bogus article claims. Jeffries was also the bigger man vs.Johnson and an older and inactive is the article wants to be honest. There were no world class boxers Jeffries size in his active fighting day. If you notice, Jeffries lighter fighters gave Jeffries more trouble. Those 200 or more did not last very long. All 8 of them.

A pure junk article. Also it's obvious Travestyny has an issue. On post one he listed my name. He lists Jeffries name in threads he should not even be in. Look- Jeffries did not lose , but one fight and he was 6 years retired for that one His career doesn't need excuses. This " historian " , which I tend to doubt then posts a bogus article to smear things. See right through this clown I do. There is a reason for this being posted here, and it's his lame attempt to influence the uninformed.

I guess someone can tell Mr. Rourke, since Jeffries beat Sharkey twice, Corbett twice, and Fitzsimmons twice, all of whom are in the boxing hall of fame, that maybe they are greatly overrated since Jeffries is 6-0 vs these three men. How unlucky they are Jeffries didn't quit, right?

Did you read the article? Or maybe you didn't read it carefully.

It says Jeffries wanted to quit in the 5th round of the first fight with Fitzsimmons, and in the 18th round of his fight with Sharkey at Coney Island. Not in the same fight. That was apparently coming from his trainer several years before the Johnson fight. Why would what he tells his trainer be in the newspaper?

Also, it clearly says that he was supposed to fight Armstrong and O'Donnell on the same day. It also clearly mentions the broken thumb. His point was that O'Donnel was knocked out by George Dixon, so he thought Jeffries could push through. I won't say that's a fair assessment, but clearing up that's what is clearly mentioned.


You just assume they didn't like him because they were Irish? Delaney was his trainer vs. the Irish guy, wasn't he? I would assume that was before their falling out directly before the Johnson bout. Kinda seems like you just threw that out there.


Why do you think Jeffries passed up McVey? Or Johnson while he was champ? They were plenty big and skilled. He fought black boxers before, and even one while he was champ, tho the guy was like a "famine survivor," so why suddenly duck those two? What is your opinion?

[travestyny]

Tammany is one of those guys that can be profiled based on what was in his own interest. A guy like Muldoon, is a bit of a ghost by comparison. What motivated Muldoon, where he stood on mixed fights, takes a bit of digging deep. Muldoon was first and foremost a physical fitnesse guru with a respectable background in wrestling.

Tammany wanted the Irish and Black votes. he probably had a sit down with Jesus and asked himself: "Hummm? is it better to keep these two groups divided? or empower them?" If I was a Machivellian Prince, so to speak, and wanted to use other human beings as a means to a political end, I would probably want to keep the Irish and Black divided because with enough soliderity they might soon want one of their own in the political communities, which did in fact happen with the irish who became intrenched in the police forces, etc.

Good stuff. That makes perfect sense.

But what I don't get with respect to Willie's use of the whole Tammany thing is, he says we can't trust Muldoon because he was Tammany...though Muldoon didn't want the Dempsey/Wills fight (you kinda explained him being more individualistic in his approach here). Willie also says we can't trust Farley because he was Tammany, and he did want the Dempsey/Wills fight. I don't know if the other commissioner was Tammany or not, but I know they overruled Muldoon 2-1 in favor of the fight. In any event, it seems that he's saying the Tammany goons wanted the Dempsey/Wills fight.

I've got no idea why that would be a problem because that's exactly what the public wanted, and what we all wish would have happened. If anything, that should have led to the fight more easily being made. They claimed there were no secret powers barring the fight. And if they are that secret power, as Willie seems to intimate, and they wanted the fight....then it seems they have a point.

[billeau2]

Makes me wonder why he came out of retirement to fight him.

This information is documented. Jeffries was harassed by Jack London, you know, the famous author... London wrote for the Oakland daily papers and hated Johnson with a passion. He got fed up with JOhnson and implored Jeffries to beat him. London's pressing reason why Johnson had to be beat? Because he was Black and it was, to Johnson, the responsability of the white race to reestablish primacy. He convinced Jeffries that he was the one who had to make this happen. I believe he may have actually went out and implored the kansas farm boy (jeffries) in person.

London wrote progressive tomes for docworkers rights, he was a supporter of benefits to the working man, and was also a stone cold racist.

[billeau2]

Good stuff. That makes perfect sense.

But what I don't get with respect to Willie's use of the whole Tammany thing is, he says we can't trust Muldoon because he was Tammany...though Muldoon didn't want the Dempsey/Wills fight (you kinda explained him being more individualistic in his approach here). Willie also says we can't trust Farley because he was Tammany, and he did want the Dempsey/Wills fight. I don't know if the other commissioner was Tammany or not, but I know they overruled Muldoon 2-1 in favor of the fight. In any event, it seems that he's saying the Tammany goons wanted the Dempsey/Wills fight.

I've got no idea why that would be a problem because that's exactly what the public wanted, and what we all wish would have happened. If anything, that should have led to the fight more easily being made. They claimed there were no secret powers barring the fight. And if they are that secret power, as Willie seems to intimate, and they wanted the fight....then it seems they have a point.

Muldoon was peripheral to boxing and was indeed an individualist. So he may well have had views that would contradict his support of the political machine. Now...I never considered the dempsey fight, only Sullivan. I must say I am flumoxed about Muldoon's choice regarding the Dempsey fight. It may have been about race, or perhaps he thought wills would beat Dempsey. As far as the goons POV I would think they would go with the public... Everyone wanted what would make Tammany stronger. So, perhaps Tammany Hall did want the fight. Maybe they had reasons to claim they wanted the fight while not really wanting for it to happen. I can't think of a reason why this would be.

I will say this: If Tammany really wanted the fight and anyone was in the way, we would probably have had the fight. Tammaney would buy it, or break the person in the way... The way it worked was that different people in positions of power in the community would do the bidding for the political operations. This tells me that whatever happened was at the level of the fighters and their teams, contracts, etc. Even the cash for the fight could have been put up of Tammany wanted it...

[Willie Pep 229]

You guys realize that Jimmy Walker (Walker Law) along with Boss Tweed are considered the definitive TH icons. Walker was chair of the city council in 1920 which created the NYSAC and was mayor later in the 1920s. He barely stayed out of jail at the end. Tweed of course went to prison (much earlier).

The reason they wanted the fight was two fold. The usual: it would bring revenue and prestige to the City and thus to them. Second, there seems to be some evidence that some of the politicians had bought up some of Wills' contract and of course would stand to gain from a champion Wills.

One of the more interesting events was Kearns setting up the NYSAC commission and leaving them with egg on their face.

During his 1922 westward adventure looking for anything except a New York based fight (thus assuring Rickard woukd be left out) Kearns sent word that he had the backing for a Dempsey-Wills fight in Montreal. The match maker for MSG took the bait and announced Wills was ready to fight. (I can't come up with his name off hand but the NY Times article includes it.) Two days later he reverses himself and announces that Wills isn't available to fight in Montreal; there would be no fight. What seems to be obvious is that the fool didn't get the memo, the fight was about NY not doing the right thing by Wills. This is what Kearns was looking to expose, NYSAC's duplicity regarding all the noise they were making about justice.

I suspect the Montreal offer was a roost from the start. But who can ever know what Kearns was actually up to. (He was at that time also claiming he had a million dollar offer for JJ in Mexico City.)

Kearns would of course call NYSAC bluff on their threat to strip Dempsey's title as well. That is how the whole bogus Greb fight in Philly supposedly came to the table. Kearns was letting it be known that he didn't need NYSAC's title scantioning or for that matter New York City either. Kearns then publically blew off the Greb fight the very same day that the NYSAC deadline passed without them acting on their threat. (I think Kearns enjoyed making the NYSAC look foolish.) At that point he no longer needed Greb; that was probably a roost from the start as well.

After Kearns finally got what he wanted in 1923 the Gibbons fight in Montana, so damn far away from New York that even Rickard couldn't reach that far to meddle. (This of course is a classic example of be careful of what you ask for.) The world, and particularly the town of Shebly, was about to learn that pulling off a million dollar prize fight is no guarantee, you have to know what you are doing, and they and Kearns didn't.

After the fiasco in Shelby Dempsey soured on Kearns and went running back to Rickard. At that point TH/NYSAC knew they had to abandon Wills and grab the Firpo fight at the Polo Grounds in September '23.

Rickard after Shelby was in the cat bird seat with Dempsey and would not make the Wills fight; Kearns was watching Dempsey slipped through his fingers.

IMHO NYSAC never gave a tinker's damn about Wills except what they could squeeze out of him - when it was obvious they couldn't force the Dempsey fight they walked away from him. That's why I call Muldoon and Farley corrupt.

[travestyny]

You guys realize that Jimmy Walker (Walker Law) along with Boss Tweed are considered the definitive TH icons. Walker was chair of the city council in 1920 which created the NYSAC and was mayor later in the 1920s. He barely stayed out of jail at the end. Tweed of course went to prison (much earlier).

The reason they wanted the fight was two fold. The usual: it would bring revenue and prestige to the City and thus to them. Second, there seems to be some evidence that some of the politicians had bought up some of Wills' contract and of course would stand to gain from a champion Wills.

One of the more interesting events was Kearns setting up the NYSAC commission and leaving them with egg on their face.

During his 1922 westward adventure looking for anything except a New York based fight (thus assuring Rickard woukd be left out) Kearns sent word that he had the backing for a Dempsey-Wills fight in Montreal. The match maker for MSG took the bait and announced Wills was ready to fight. (I can't come up with his name off hand but the NY Times article includes it.) Two days later he reverses himself and announces that Wills isn't available to fight in Montreal; there would be no fight. What seems to be obvious is that the fool didn't get the memo, the fight was about NY not doing the right thing by Wills. This is what Kearns was looking to expose, NYSAC's duplicity regarding all the noise they were making about justice.

I suspect the Montreal offer was a roost from the start. But who can ever know what Kearns was actually up to. (He was at that time also claiming he had a million dollar offer for JJ in Mexico City.)

Kearns would of course call NYSAC bluff on their threat to strip Dempsey's title as well. That is how the whole bogus Greb fight in Philly supposedly came to the table. Kearns was letting it be known that he didn't need NYSAC's title scantioning or for that matter New York City either. Kearns then publically blew off the Greb fight the very same day that the NYSAC deadline passed without them acting on their threat. (I think Kearns enjoyed making the NYSAC look foolish.) At that point he no longer needed Greb; that was probably a roost from the start as well.

After Kearns finally got what he wanted in 1923 the Gibbons fight in Montana, so damn far away from New York that even Rickard couldn't reach that far to meddle. (This of course is a classic example of be careful of what you ask for.) The world, and particularly the town of Shebly, was about to learn that pulling off a million dollar prize fight is no guarantee, you have to know what you are doing, and they and Kearns didn't.

After the fiasco in Shelby Dempsey soured on Kearns and went running back to Rickard. At that point TH/NYSAC knew they had to abandon Wills and grab the Firpo fight at the Polo Grounds in September '23.

Rickard after Shelby was in the cat bird seat with Dempsey and would not make the Wills fight; Kearns was watching Dempsey slipped through his fingers.

IMHO NYSAC never gave a tinker's damn about Wills except what they could squeeze out of him - when it was obvious they couldn't force the Dempsey fight they walked away from him. That's why I call Muldoon and Farley corrupt.

But what about when they actually did suspend Dempsey because he wouldn't fight Wills in New York?


As for Montreal, I've always seen Wills side saying they were willing and ready to fight anywhere for any amount. Dempsey said he was out of shape and needed more time, or something to that extent. Rickard's people at MSG who were going to put on the Montreal fight were apparently upset with Dempsey.

The matchmaker you were referring to was in fact working for Rickard. So I'm not sure how Rickard was going to be left out.

The Great Falls Tribune - June 8th, 1922.

[Willie Pep 229]

But what about when they actually did suspend Dempsey because he wouldn't fight Wills in New York?


As for Montreal, I've always seen Wills side saying they were willing and ready to fight anywhere for any amount. Dempsey said he was out of shape and needed more time, or something to that extent. Rickard's people at MSG who were going to put on the Montreal fight were apparently upset with Dempsey.

The matchmaker you were referring to was in fact working for Rickard. So I'm not sure how Rickard was going to be left out.

The Great Falls Tribune - June 8th, 1922.

But I believe NY already said no when Dempsey balked about the short date. I was aware of the Dempsey complaint about the short date but I thought it was getting too long of a post. In fact you don't need to use that obviously bias headline source you posted lol you can go to the NYT and find Dempsey complaining about the short time frame directly. It makes me wonder if Kearns ever even bothered to keep Dempsey in the loop. Kearns would throw out press releases daily almost all them going no where.

I don't see how the MSG match maker can be working directly for Rickard the facility is owned by the city and that guy works for the city.

Also later on an anti trust suit is brought against NY becuse there was too close of a conectuon between the Garden and the IBC. So it wouldn't surprise me if Rickard was lining the guy's pocket - it was Ruckard who was bringing the City and MSG its biggest fights but that is not working for him and doesn't neccesarily translate to Montreal.

Like I said I don't believe the Montreal fight was ever real from the get go - Kearns was blowing smoke up their as s as he did with the three different times he claimed he was ready to sign with Wlls in NY (1922) and never actually got to the bottom line. All smoke!

But in regards to Kearns keeping Ruckard out. Easy ask yourself where was Dempsey's next fight? Gibbons in Montana.

Why do you insist in buying into these anti-Dempsey news articles. They are so obviously bias; do you actually think that Dempsey was the one making any of these decisions?

The two times Dempsey actually tried to act on his own they were both no goes.

The Chicago contract - and it seems when Kearns made the mistake of leaving Dempsey alone in Europe he came back in January '22 announcing he signed to fight a rematch with Carpentier with some English promoters.

A few days later there was a very short PR by Kearns stating that no deal was signed in England. But I think you and I know Dempsey probably did sign.

I know you and the other anti- Dempsey posters like to use Dempsey's words against him but unless you understand the people around Dempsey - Kearns, Fitzsimmons, Rickard you don't have a handle of what was going on. Dempsey was never in charge his words are irrelevant.