Omaha daily bee., 1914-01-04
RENO FIGHT MARKS CHANGE
Big Fiasoo at Nevada Metropolis
Has a Far-Reaohing Effect.
LOOK AT IT DIFFERENT NOW
winners of Douts Are Not COndOned
of Their Faults and Accorded
Respect that Fans Used
TO Give Them.

TO Give Them.
NEW YORK, Jan. 3.-The generally ac-
cepted idea that present day white hopes
do not begin to compare with the old
/ line OF heavyweights seems to be Pathcr
far fetched upon looking over past per
formances A careful consideration OF all
the iacts indicates that It is the point Of
view regarding pugfnsm that has
changed rather than the quality of
Drawn and muscle
That horrible fiasco at Reno had more
far reaching effects than has been
realized. For one thing, 1t brought about
great change In the manner of treat
ing boxing on the sporting pages.
Whereas formerly all was to glorify the
boxer and glaze over his faults. the PEN
dulum swung to the opposite extreme
following the shock and disappointment
that resulted from the boosting of Jer-
fries out of all proportion to his merits.
with the laudable intention of enlven-
ing his column, some sporting para
grapher recently hit upon what might
be termed a verbal slapstick form OF
humor. This form OF getting laughs, re-
quiring less mental effort than any
other. has been widely copied. II merely
requires a victim for few sarcastic re-
marks. and the white hopes, providing
ready material, have suffered in con-
sequence. often Justly and often unjustly.
The obvious excuse for hitting every
head in sight Is, OF course, based on the
alleged fact that the present day boxers
are lot Of hopeless incompetents when
compared with the old timers. But this
vuhp 70 -
would indicate that the Anglo-Saxons
have changed to race of weaklings
overnight, a conclusion that is manifestly
incorrect
Are a Fair Average.
That the white hopes are an incom-
petent lot may be true enough. but on
an average they are no worse than some
OF the old timers whose names will live
in pugillstic history.
Practically all the present set of
hopes had their counterparts ten
years ago. To compare William with
Jeffries IL held to be a ridiculous pro-
ceeding, but It can be done with rather
surprising results. For instance, could
Jeffries shoot a straight left with moro
speed, force or precision than willard
cam He could not Did Jeffries have a
better uppercut or straight right than
Willard has? There is nothing to show
it. Did Jeffries have better footwork or
any footwork at all. for that matter?
Not when he fought Sharkey and Cor
bett at any rate
Willard's one fault is that he lacks
aggressiveness. but Jeffies was little
better. When he met sharkey he planted
himself in the center OF the ring and
never moved from the spot save when
Sharkey's rushes forced him back. Tow
ering full head over his opponent.
Jeffries allowed his chunky little antag-
onist to make all the fight. He hardly
risked a lead in the whole encounter.
And sharkey. showing less intelligence
than the poorest of the 'hopes." dashed
himself on the giants fists in wide open
style A more boneheaded proceeding
could hardly be imagined. II present
day heavy were found guilty of such fool
tactics he would be laughed to scorn
Yet Jeffries could not knock Sharkey
out. showing that he was not Won
derful hitter by any means. for FItz-
simmons had stopped sharkey with one
punch
smith Has Rig Chance.
Again. when Jeffries met Corbett at
Coney Island, he showed al the rec
siveness OF a COW chewing her cud in
the pasture. For over twenty rounds
Jeffrles was deaf to the fearful plead
Ing of his seconds to do little fighting.
Finally by a fortunate circumstances,
he caught his opponent unprotected, and
the extremely fragile Corbett crumpled
up la Bombardier Wells For this jeff
was hailed as the wonder of wonders
For F1tzsimmons we now have Gun
boat Smith In comparing these men It
must be remembered that F1tz was prob
ably the greatest fighter not only OF his
own, but of all time Smith little more
than Fitzsimmons, yet he can drop the
Ed Dunkhorsts of today with as little
ceremony as Fitz wasted over such mat
ters, It took F1tzsimmons years to de-
velop his cunning generalship. At Gun
boats age he had no such record as
Smith can boast OF.
In place Of Choynski we now have
Levinsky. The latter runs poor second.
but IT is doubtful OF walcott could have
knocked him out. And Levinsky Is young
with his future all before him.
Maher and Rodel resemble each other
in that both have sought the floor when
gloves arrived too fast for their liking
Rodel has no such wallop as Peter car
ried, but he can box as well. II not bet
ter.
Gus Rubin made some noise in his
time, but he would not be invincible II
alive and at his best today. The second
and third raters Of the two periods offer
no basis for comparison, but without
doubt there is no difference between
them.