Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Didn't Jeffries Give Sharkey Another Title Shot?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #1

    Why Didn't Jeffries Give Sharkey Another Title Shot?

    On the 3rd of November 1899 ,Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey engaged in a brutal war when Jeffries defended his title against the Sailor.
    Many felt Sharkey was entitled to at least a draw. Sharkey posted $5000 with Tim Considine for a rematch.
    Jeffries in reply said ,"when I do get ready to fight,Sharkey will have the preference if he wants it".
    But when he defended his title again on the 6th of April1900 Jeffries picked no hoper John Finnegan as his challenger.A defence that netted him less than $2000 .

    Jeffries followed this up by defending against Corbett on the 11 th of May1900..Sharkey had beaten Corbett18 months earlier.
    Meanwhile after the war with Jeffries , Sharkey got back into action .
    Stopping Joe Goddard in 6rds . Feb13th
    Koing Jim Jeffords in 2 rds.Feb 19th 1900
    Koing Jack McCormack in1 rd Mar 15th
    Koing Tom Conroy in3 rds 29th Mar1900
    Tkoing Joe Choynski in3 rds on 8th May1900
    Koing Yank Kenny in 1 rd on3rd Jun.

    So why didn't Sharkey get that deserved rematch?
    Anomalocaris Anomalocaris likes this.
    Tags: None
    • Likes 1
    #2
    Perhaps Jim did not want to go through that awesome brutality again with Tom and who can blame him?

    Comment

      #3
      Jeffries had a close 20 round fight with Tom Sharkey in 1898 and then once winning the title made Sharkey his very first defense. That seems a fair move.

      Going into1900 Jeffries had beaten Sharkey twice and neither decision was in much dispute (other than Sharkey's people.)

      Jeffries giving Corbett the 1900 fight makes sense, since there seems to have been a friendship there and Corbett was an ex-champion. (So IMO doesn't really have to do much to earn the fight.)

      As far as Finnegan is concerned. I have always been an advocate that a Champion, after a tough defense, gets a showcase fight (an easy fight).

      This means Jeffries next defense should be in 1901 and by then Sailor Tom had fallen apart.

      Between 1900-1903 Sharkey was stopped by Gus Ruhlin twice and blown out by former champion Ruby Rob Fitzsimmons in two rounds, who positioned himself instead for a Jeffries rematch (which he got.)

      I suspect if Sharkey had beaten Fitzsimmons in 1900 or at least Ruhlin, then there would have been an argument that Sharkey deserved a 1901 rematch.

      As it actually was, Gus Ruhlin and Ruby Rob both had better arguments for a title shot. Both had stopped Ton Sharkey.

      It looks all fair to me.

      Comment

        #4
        Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
        Jeffries had a close 20 round fight with Tom Sharkey in 1898 and then once winning the title made Sharkey his very first defense. That seems a fair move.

        Going into1900 Jeffries had beaten Sharkey twice and neither decision was in much dispute (other than Sharkey's people.)

        Jeffries giving Corbett the 1900 fight makes sense, since there seems to have been a friendship there and Corbett was an ex-champion. (So IMO doesn't really have to do much to earn the fight.)

        As far as Finnegan is concerned. I have always been an advocate that a Champion, after a tough defense, gets a showcase fight (an easy fight).

        This means Jeffries next defense should be in 1901 and by then Sailor Tom had fallen apart.

        Between 1900-1903 Sharkey was stopped by Gus Ruhlin twice and blown out by former champion Ruby Rob Fitzsimmons in two rounds, who positioned himself instead for a Jeffries rematch (which he got.)

        I suspect if Sharkey had beaten Fitzsimmons in 1900 or at least Ruhlin, then there would have been an argument that Sharkey deserved a 1901 rematch.

        As it actually was, Gus Ruhlin and Ruby Rob both had better arguments for a title shot. Both had stopped Ton Sharkey.

        It looks all fair to me.
        No. The decision for the second fight was in much dispute,and not from just Sharkey supporters.

        Sharkey being beaten later by Ruhlin and Fitzsimmons has zero to do with him not being given a championship chance between the dates I have given .
        In1960 Dan Daniel endeavoured to get to the bottom of things in his Ring Detective column
        "Was Sharkey Robbed Of The Heavyweight Title?" Daniel sifted through the the claims of a fix,the referee having been affected by the heat and given the wrong decision etc.He interviewed the doctor who had treated Sharkey after the fight,and various people that were at the fight,and read up on the contemporary accounts of the contest,his conclusion was Sharkey was entitled to a draw.
        Maybe he was ,maybe he wasn't,but imo, he was entitled to a rematch!
        Last edited by Bronson66; 02-11-2025, 04:16 AM.
        Anomalocaris Anomalocaris likes this.
        • Likes 1

        Comment

          #5
          Originally posted by Bronson66 View Post

          No. The decision for the second fight was in much dispute,and not from just Sharkey supporters.

          Sharkey being beaten later by Ruhlin and Fitzsimmons has zero to do with him not being given a championship chance between the dates I have given .
          I disagree.

          He had two shots at Jeffries. One to decide who gets the Fitzsimmons fight. The second one was Jeffries first defense. Sharkey got what he deserved.

          Just because people howl anout a decision does not get you an automatic title fight. Ask Ali in '71 if that's tradition. It's not.

          Even Dempsey had to prove he deserved another shot at Tunney.

          Finding a few newspaper guys who support a Sharkey decision isn't enough.

          There was Corbett to fight and the easy fight was his championship right.

          We will have to agree to ...

          Comment

            #6
            Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post

            I disagree.

            He had two shots at Jeffries. One to decide who gets the Fitzsimmons fight. The second one was Jeffries first defense. Sharkey got what he deserved.

            Just because people howl anout a decision does not get you an automatic title fight. Ask Ali in '71 if that's tradition. It's not.

            Even Dempsey had to prove he deserved another shot at Tunney.

            Finding a few newspaper guys who support a Sharkey decision isn't enough.

            There was Corbett to fight and the easy fight was his championship right.

            We will have to agree to ...
            Ali-Frazier I was pretty decisive. Not a shutout by any means, but a clear win for Frazier.

            Dempsey in don't believe got an immediate rematch because of the controversy of the long count and Dempsey not going back to a neutral corner. This is only something I've read and am not sure of.

            No fighter deserves an immediate rematch because of popularity. But if the fight is Razor close and they're, rematches should be granted in my opinion. The Tunney-Dempsey fight is a one off if what i read is true. Claiming a long count when not going to a neutral corner is not an excuse in my opinion. Not saying that is what happened, but the fact is that even with the knockdown Tunney won unanimously. Again, I am of the frame of mind that only Razor close fights deserve an immediate rematch. I absolutely hate the rematch clauses of today that are just money grabs.

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post

              Ali-Frazier I was pretty decisive. Not a shutout by any means, but a clear win for Frazier.

              Dempsey in don't believe got an immediate rematch because of the controversy of the long count and Dempsey not going back to a neutral corner. This is only something I've read and am not sure of.

              No fighter deserves an immediate rematch because of popularity. But if the fight is Razor close and there rematches should be granted in my opinion. The Tunney-Dempsey fight is a one off if what i read is true. Claiming a long count when not going to a neutral corner is not an excuse in my opinion. Not saying that is what happened, but the fact is that even with the knockdown Tunney won unanimously. Again, I am of the frame of mind that only Razor close fights deserve an immediate rematch. I absolutely hate the rematch clauses of today that are just money grabs.
              The Long Count fight was actually the rematch and Dempsey’s last fight. He fought Sharkey after the first Tunney loss in order to get the rematch with Tunney.

              Jeffries has already beaten Sharkey twice, even broke his ribs. Maybe he didn’t think a third fight would be as lucrative as a fight with former champ Corbett. A fight with Sharkey may have been more risk and not worth the reward.

              Comment

                #8
                Jeffries beat Fitz, Sharkey, and Corbett with a 2 year span! And gave each man a re-match!

                This is equivalent for any legacy champion beating their best opponents in two years and fighting them not once, but twice. Try that hat on for size.​

                I do not know of ANY fighter who has done that before or since.

                WOW

                Comment

                  #9
                  They found out old Tom was just a little bit black
                  billeau2 billeau2 likes this.
                  • Likes 1

                  Comment

                    #10
                    Originally posted by GhostofDempsey View Post

                    The Long Count fight was actually the rematch and Dempsey’s last fight. He fought Sharkey after the first Tunney loss in order to get the rematch with Tunney.

                    Jeffries has already beaten Sharkey twice, even broke his ribs. Maybe he didn’t think a third fight would be as lucrative as a fight with former champ Corbett. A fight with Sharkey may have been more risk and not worth the reward.
                    And this is a perfect example of why you can believe everything you read!!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP