The forgotten greats - Beau Jack

Ayup everyone, hope the first half of the week hasn’t been too taxing. A while back on the old 606 (spit) I posted a list of my top ten Lightweights of all time, and after much deliberation I decided to give the tenth and final spot to Joe ‘Old Bones’ Brown, who’d been tussling back and forth with the man I’m about to cover in this article; the ‘Georgia Shoe Shiner’, born Sidney Walker but better known as Beau Jack, a brilliant Lightweight who sadly has slipped off the radar a little bit in recent times, it seems.

We’ll get on to Jack’s considerable career achievements in a moment, but first off I have to say that Jack’s extraordinary life outside the ring, his upbringing and his odd introduction to boxing is also as good a reason as any to write an article on him. I not long ago stumbled across an interview with Jack in which he stated that he was raised by his grandma and granddad after losing both parents while still an infant. His account included some remarkable claims, most notably that his grandma lived until 112 years old, and also that his granddad stood at an unbelievable height of 7’6” (yes, I had to carefully check that I’d read that bit properly as well). Whatever the truth regarding this, Jack clearly didn’t inherit the same genes, standing a whole two feet smaller than that reported height.

Jack had no amateur career, but learned his boxing in the strangest way imaginable – the ‘battle royals’, in which a group of five or six (usually penniless) black fighters entered the ring and knocked ten bells out of each other until only one was left standing, usually for the entertainment of a white consortium which had funded them. Jack, however, appeared not to regret his harsh apprenticeship, saying “I learned a trick. To duck down low in a corner and let them come by me. Then I'd knock them off until there was only one left to fight. First time I tried it, I won and got the first fifty dollar bill I ever had. After that, I won all the time.”

Jack eventually turned professional in 1940 and set a frenetic pace, fighting fifty-odd times in a little over two years and, by late 1942, had knocked out the experienced long-time contender Tippy Larkin for the vacant NYSAC version of the Lightweight crown. I’m probably guilty, in hindsight, of over-estimating Joe Brown’s length of title reign when placing him ahead of Jack in my aforementioned Lightweight standings. Jack’s total of no successful title defences over either one of his two reigns can hardly compare to Brown’s eleven consecutive defences – a record until a certain Roberto Duran came along – but let’s look at the company Jack was keeping. He quickly lost but then regained the title against Bob Montgomery, himself a wonderful Lightweight who would have been successful in any era. The two of them would split their four fight series 2-2.

Jack boxed on for eleven years after losing the title, but was frozen out for a number of reasons; he was in line to challenge Ike Williams in 1947, but a persistent knee injury (which had worsened over the years due to Jack’s relentless pressure style) pre-empted a surprise loss to Juan Zurita, who instead was given the Williams bout. Jack put that right later the same year, however like his idol Henry Armstrong, Jack’s style had taken its toll and dictated that his peak years would be relatively short, and his fighting clock was slowly winding down by this point. Also, the fact that Jack was one of the few world class fighters of that era not to be instantly snapped up by the notorious Blinky Palermo meant that he had to wait in line for longer than he should have before finally fighting a title bout again.

Jack eventually got his shot against Williams in 1948, but took a savage beating (the amount of punishment he took before the referee intervened, even allowing for the nature of boxing at that time, has to be seen to be believed) and could only muster one draw in his four fights against him. However, he continued to mix it with the very best right up until the end of his career, scoring wins over the notoriously filthy Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Johnny Bratton, Sammy Angott and Lew Jenkins, all outstanding champions at either Lightweight or Welterweight.

Having sadly gone back to shining shoes (as he did in his childhood) after his career ended due to some poor financial decisions, it would have been easy for Jack to be bitter when looking back on his boxing life. However, while I obviously never knew the man personally, reading his views on what went before I’m impressed with his honesty and the kind words he bestowed upon his former foes. He describes how he was “lucky” to beat Armstrong in 1943 and describes Homicide Hank as “my idol, the greatest ever.” He’s also one of what must surely be only a few who have taken the time to heap praise on Zivic, saying “I learned more about fighting from Fritzie than anyone. If you didn’t learn from him, you were crazy...Not dirty, just a good fighter.”

Raising $35million in the ‘war bond fight’ with Montgomery (which Jack described as his proudest moment) and campaigning for a boxing pension scheme are also traits which are to be admired about Jack, at least in my eyes. As stated before, Jack’s title record may not hold weight when lined up with Joe Brown’s, but was I wrong to put ‘Old Bones’ ahead of him? Given the sheer record amassed by Jack, I may well have been. An incredible story, a character, and a great fighter to boot. Worthy of his moment in the 606v2 sun, methinks.

Thanks for sticking with me, lads.

What a nice tribute to a man who faced so many HOFers but who is too often remembered for coming up short, ( spectacularly so, in one case, ) over several outings against the great Ike Williams.

Really interesting article Chris. I haven't read much about Beau Jack but will after reading this. Thanks.

I believe Jack Johnson fought in a few "battle royals" as well. He turned out to be an alright fighter in the end.

What was great about this guy!!!

Just some rough swinging uncultured slugger that picked up the world light title...

Roger Mayweather had two title reigns too..

Sorry but this guy for me is a worthy champ but nothing more.

Whilst obviously the Battle Royals were pretty horrible spectacles is amazing that both Jack and Johnson gave a lot of credit to them for making them the fighters they were. Also interesting to read his comments about Zivic, have read similar from Robbo who maintained he learned more in 20 rounds with Fritzie than he did from any other fight.

For what it's worth agree Brown should be above Jack in the ratings

anybody who's seen the williams fight surely agrees that great is an over-used word....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:anybody who's seen the williams fight surely agrees that great is an over-used word....

I know, they were nearly as one-sided as Spinks versus Tyson and Curry versus Honeyghan, weren't they?

Would have thought you'd make the distinction that Roger Mayweather has absolutely nowhere near the same quality on his record as Jack does, mind you. You may not care for Jack's style (and I agree he, like Armstrong, wasn't the prettiest to watch) but you can't deny that just about any active fighter right now would kill for a record which boasted Montgomery, Jenkins, Angott, Bratton, Armstrong, Larkin, Al 'Bummy' Davis, Zurita and Zivic.

The fact that so many, like you, are ready to dismiss him on the basis of taking a hammering from an all-time top five Lightweight while ignoring all his other feats is exactly why he's a forgotten great. Still, horses for courses.

Thanks for the contributions Windy, Rowley and MTWT. You might be right with regards to Brown over Jack as I first thought, Jeff, but I can be a wee bit impulsive when it comes to rating fighters at the lower end of a top ten list, where the gaps tend to be a lot smaller than at the top.

I'm dismissing him on account of his lack of talent.........

One of the worst fighters I've ever seen......Give Armstrong his due he won titles at three different weight's but he wasn't much better..

Just think "Great" is an overused word..

Spinks was taken out at heavy...not light heavy!!


No matter i have my opinion.......Norris beat Leonard, Mugabi, Taylor, Brown, Curry etc but I don't regard him as great either!!

Opinion..I do enjoy your nostalgic offerings....no harm meant.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm dismissing him on account of his lack of talent.........

One of the worst fighters I've ever seen......Give Armstrong his due he won titles at three different weight's but he wasn't much better..

So Armstrong wasn't much better than one of the worst fighters you've ever seen? Hhhmmm...

Still, I'll take the rest of what you said as a thinly-veiled compliment and thank you for your contributions all the same, chap.

Wasn't much better stylistically....Armstrong was pretty much uncultured...

Armstrong is in my top 10 alltime list for his groundbreaking three title achievement..but Ray Robbo he wasn't.....

This guy for me was just a brawler with a bolo punch......

Ike Williams great for sure.....This guy was a swinger with heart..

Don't be so sensitive..

Top article Chris

It is too bad that the only film usually shown of Jack is his slaughter at the hands of the great Ike Williams in Philly 1948. At that time Beau was in too many wars,right on top of another, and he was starting to slide.Definetly a great fighter.Strong as a bull throwing, hooks, crosses, uppercuts, bolo punches,together in blinding speed.
How good do I rate him? Not the greatest but good enough to whip the many considered modern greats. If he could lick a Henry Armstrong or a
larger Fritzie Zivic [twice], his non stop attack would be too much for them.
What a golden age of lightweights in his time. Armstrong, Ike vWilliams,
Bob Montgomery, Willie Joyce, Tippy Larkin,Sammy Angott, Al Bummy
Davis,Allie Stolz,and a host of other great 135 pounders.....

Not mentioned much as a mythical matchup but Jack v Mayweather at 135 would be fascinating IMO.

According to reports he fought like that all the time...swinging wide open...

He was never cultured just like Gatti and Ward very brave with a big heart...Probably enough back in the old uncultured days..

Billy Conn " All I did was circle the ring and punch straight that way I got there first"...kind of say's it all really.

I saw Mayweather vs Hatton and Manny vs Hatton..who would want to see Jack being banged out and humiliated.

Depends which way you determine talent Truss, seems too many chaps these days see the flash harry with the razzle dazzle as the only guys with genuine talent these days. Believe you me Armstrong is as talented as any other fighter in history IMO, the infighting, the savvy, the control of pace during the fight is talent, just because he didnt rattle off 6 punch combination and did the Ali shuffle doesnt mean he wasnt extremely talented.

Tend to agree Jimmy. This was a point I was trying to make in the innumerable debates about Marcinao that have taken place on here. Read a quote from Archie Moore about fighting the Rock in which he says he is a tough opponent because no matter what you try none of it matters because the Rock just ignores it and keeps coming forward and punching so at some point you have to abandon your game plan and fight fire with fire.

Now for me being able to take one of the finest technicians the ring has seen out of his game plan and force him to fight your fight is one heck of a skill and should not be dismissed as crudeness or a lack of skill.

You forgot the rough house tactics....

Like I said Armstrong is in my top 10.....I thought Tyson was a very efficient fighter and he was a come forward non flash Harry...

I've seen Armstrong and this guy fight and they are both of an uncultured nature.....Armstrong was better than this guy and he achieved alot more over a multitude of weights..Hence I rate him...

I think talent does need to be taken into consideration when labelling someone great as well as title longevity.....

Said he was worthy..didn't dismiss him entirely.

In agreement Jeff, great quote the last paragraph (Marciano bit is spot on IMO)

I agree Truss, Tyson was a very talented fighter, I just dont know how you percieve talent as cultured or uncultured. People mention Audley Harrison as talented but in essence was he really ? didnt sit down on his punches, chin up in the air when he threw the left.

Moore was about forty five when he lost to the Rock wasn't he????

8-4 to Walcott in rounds when Rocky won the lottery wasn't it???

The scoring suggests that Marciano was fighting Jersey's fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Moore was about forty five when he lost to the Rock wasn't he????

8-4 to Walcott in rounds when Rocky won the lottery wasn't it???

The scoring suggests that Marciano was fighting Jersey's fight.

BUT most importantly the result didn't

Good post Jimmy, good to see you back after your leave of absence. I usually go for the mid to late thirties as the best era for the Lightweights (Armstrong, Ambers, McLarnin, Canzoneri, Ross and Arizmendi, what a line up) but as you say, Jack's era wouldn't be far behind.

Given Mayweather's physical presence at 135 lb I'd probably make him favourite against Jack (happy now, Truss?) but Jack's record - particularly the wins over slickters such as Angott and Bratton - suggest that he'd be well in the mix.

Probably make him favorite......God alive....

One of the greatest talents ever against a crude swarmer....

I'm sorry chris I'm being argumentative and ruining your thread which as ever is beautifully written....

Maybe he is great but I just think great is an overused word and as Leonard/Hearns and Ali etc are referred to as great there doesn't seem to be a direct kind of correlation with them and this guy...


Heads up to Beau Jack though..a gentleman, crowd pleaser who never knew when to quit!! and most importantly the greatest shoe shiner the great USA has ever known...RIP.

One of the greatest talents ever against a crude swarmer..
_____________________________________

Was Frazier a crude swarmer against Ali ?
Was Castillo a crude swarmer against Mayweather first time round ?
Was Duran a crude swarmer against Leonard ?

Maybes great is overused Truss, but like I mentioned earlier you dont have to be a certain type of fighter to be classed as talented.

I don't you can compare the above to this guy Jimmy..

Pretty poor stuff.

Therein lies the point, you refer to Hearns as great but somone who could not take a punch surely can't be that great?

Different styles require different skills and for the most part Jack was very successful doing what he did much in the same way that Hearns could, too much emphasise is placed on being silky smooth nowadays.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't you can compare the above to this guy Jimmy..

Pretty poor stuff.

How about someone such as Basilio then, Truss? He wouldn't have won any prizes for style but a great fighter he certainly was. His crude technique saw him get outboxed a few times early on, but like Jack he gained experience, added a little more craft to his game and was eventually able to beat the likes of Robinson (albeit a slightly past his prime version) and Saxton (that 'loss' in their first fight was a disgraceful verdict manufactured by Carbo, who could never buy Basilio's career no matter how hard he tried).

As I said, also, Angott and Bratton weren't slam-bang fighters, and Jack beat them both. Still as I said, each to his own, and thanks for the kind words regarding the article.

Hearns had a brilliant boxing style and huge talent..........

Great jab, great footwork, speed etc...Come on pal..

Basilio was less crude than this guy Chris....Have you seen him fight ----- a wide open swinger..

But hey...heads up to Beau he overachieved and respect where it's due..

Worthy champion....

But he couldn't take a punch, had all the talent but still came up short against Leonard and Hagler, have to consider record as well as talent in my opinion.

had all the talent....

There you go....

He also won titles at 5 different weights and had greater longevity at the top...if you want to be picky.

Statistics Truss and he was never the man at any of those weights, talented yes but his record doesn't translate in the same way

You're right Virgil Hill wasn't considered the best lightheavyweight in the World!!!

Not what I said now is it

You said he was never the man at any of those weights...

Virgil Hill was the man and he beat him...end of.

Not true, though. The Ring didn't have anyone as their world champion at light-heavyweight throughout Hill's many and various reigns as champion. Nor did they ever acknowledge Hearns as champ. Rightly, since he was immediately made to look old by Barkley.

Hill could have fought Moorer or Prince Charles Williams, or even Leeonzer Barber to underline his claim as the best at 175 lbs, but chose not to. No-one rated him ahead of Moorer, and few ahead of Williams.

As the man said earlier, Hearns was never The Man at any weight - his fault, mostly.

It was after beating Henry Maske that Hill became recognised as the best in the division which i'm sure you know was some years after the Hearns loss

Mate I'm talking about beating the Man at the weight...

Surely you'll agree Hill was the man....

Ring in them days used to foist the linear champ up as the champion..

Spinks was heavy champ...around that time.....

I'm in no way being pedantic but Hill was the Man..screw the Ring.

Hill is an alltime great and holds the record at 175 he took off foster.....Who was the man then Prince charles Williams?????

Any magazine that has Spinks ahead of Tyson deserved to go bust which it did before Farhood took it over.

You can't be the man if you're scared witless of one of the other belt-holders. Hill wouldn't fight Moorer, ergo he wasn't the man - not even slightly. Williams also had at least as good a claim as the safety-first dullard from North Dakota.

Hearns banged out Shuler who was number 1 when he didn't have to..but couldn't get hold of Hagler..

Holmes avoided Thomas and Page...The same criteria attributed to them????

Hill an all-time great! We'd better call Michalczewski one as well, since he "broke" copious records as well. Hang your head in shame for even trying to compare Hill with Foster. Hill hung around like a bad smell for an eternity, making defences against people whom Andries had beaten as a champ some three years earlier, although his longevity was quite a marvel, I agree. Might have been nice if he'd ever beaten another all-time great in order to cement the status that you so risibly give him.

He is an alltime great....He holds the record whether you like it or not......

He was the best lightheavy of his generation..albeit a poor one.

Why do you think Foster was so bitter...

Now you're just floundering; I think Hagler might have already settled that argument. If Larry avoided Page and Thomas, for which we have only your word, so what, anyway. It was right at the end of his career by then. In his prime, the "great" Hill flat out refused to fight Moorer. (So, on another not entirely unrelated note did Hearns' manager refuse to let his man face McCallum, of course. Can't believe that Tommy was scared of Mike, but he should have overruled Steward.)

As an addendum, I'm not sure that Hill does hold the record anyway. Think Michalczewski went past him, defending mostly against the same men that Hill had (plus Hill himself). Guess Dariusz is an all-time great too, then? Pah!

Oh Hagler settled that argument...right the fight of the decade doesn't warrant a rematch..and banging out the number 1 contender means nothing??

Alright for Holmes to avoid Page in 83 but go on to fight and defend his IBF about five times before spinks..in 85

I'm floundering...Go figure.

No, being sprawled at your conqueror's feet after less than three rounds does not warrant a rematch a year and a bit later. If he'd shown a bit more humility towards Hagler, Hearns might have got one, but brainpower was never Tommy's long suit.

With Holmes, I'd still like to see where your proof is. With Hearns-McCallum, it's on the record that Steward didn't want a bar of Mike for Tommy. As the examiners say, show your workings for Holmes. Where's the evidence?

See no reason why Hagler would rematch Hearns, he settled the argument more than decisively

Sadly another boxer who died in poverty. I always confused him and Henry Armstrong. Probably their hairstyles.

so beating the wbc and wba no 1 means very little...

azania wrote:Sadly another boxer who died in poverty. I always confused him and Henry Armstrong. Probably their hairstyles.

Everybody looks the same in black and white, to you.

Don't think Beau was as poverty stricken as Hank....although he was dirt poor.

Arguing aside I'm sure the Captain, Atom and everyone else will agree that the way these guys were treated by snake oil promoters and then cast aside.....basically screwed penniless is just a complete disgrace...

Shabby scum bags with no humanity..........

Heartbreaking that noble warriors end up in such a way.....

Amen, brother Trussman. A boxer's trade union with teeth still can't come a day too soon. Amazing that we're still waiting for one, really.