English Champions: Jack Harris

Neva hoidda da bum.

Interesting though.

 

I didn't even know Jones meant John's son and I was already leaning toward them being the same man. Tom was a massively popular name though so I wouldn't be shocked if it's another Tom but it does fit for Johnson I believe.

It's a pretty messed up period about on par with the whole Gretting, Gritton, Pipes etc just before it. I'm hoping by the time Gentleman Jackson's Pugilistic Club takes over it's a bit more straightforward, but given the snipets I have learned I get the feeling that boxing isn't really real well known until after Marciano.

Everything is a bit of a mess. Much more than I'd assumed when I began this. The Figg origin story wasn't as straightforward as I'd assumed it'd be. Filling the void post Figg was a kerfuffle. Brings us to the era you're working in presently which has its own host of issues. Right after this is Mendoza's period which bubba let me tell you ain't no walk in the park. Then comes post Jackson Pugilistic Club and another era I've a loose understanding of at best but even if that's a good era with solid info already worked it's only a blink from there to America kicking off it's boxing and all the rough and tumble and criminal elements that come with. Then we've the Ward era which I've bitched about before, and after that we're looking at colorline all the way up to Louis, after Louis we've a bit-o-leftover mafia or organized crime to work through and the Don King.

I really appreciate y'all's help.

 

Well no I don't think so anymore. I stumbled across a Tom Jones that Tom Johnson seconded for. I think Jack Harris's Tom Jones is Paddington Tom Jones.

 

Certainly:

http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jones-paddington-tom.htm

Go to 1795 and you'll see Harris running off with the purse.

The only connection to Johnson is he seconded Jones against Keeley Lyons

 

Yeah, that's plenty true. History is a mess no matter where you look.

 

The thing is let's say I do include him and later on someone comes in with an explanation as to why Harris was included as a champion by the Boston Sunday Post. I'd quite like to read that explanation...So maybe for now I include him with no astrix or anything else to make him seem and different and later on maybe I'll reorganize the list in a way that acknowledges various degrees of dubious.

Who knows maybe someone will have an explanation as to why he really was considered champion or why the paper believed he was considered champion.

Is this the full extent of what you have on Jack Harris?

 

Sorry, but I don't know anything about a fighter with name. He is supposed to have beaten Harry Sellers, but whether that was before the latter was beaten by Fearns, or after, remains unknown.

 

Jack Harris and Spaniard Harris are supposed to be different fighters. Jack James was a fighter from 1740s, reportedly beaten by Diсk Harris on July 17, 1741, at Great Booth.