Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Tom Sharkey

During the previous summer the San Francisco Examiner had run on three consecutive Sundays a ghostwritten series of articles under Earp's byline, written in the first-person, posturing Earp as virtually the sole reason law and order had come to the Old West. The Hearst family, owners of the Examiner, had hired Earp to provide security to their family[8] and specifically for Andy Lawrence, the managing editor of the newspaper, during a visit to Tombstone. Lawrence had acquired the nickname of "Long Green" because of his ability to turn a shady dollar and made many enemies as a result, requiring Earp's services.[10][11] Earp had refereed 30 or so matches in earlier days, though not under the Marquess of Queensbury rules,[12] and he had never refereed a match of national prominence.[6]

Fight promoters John D. Gibbs and J. J. Groom of the National Athletic Club were unable to find a referee that both sides could agree on. Fitzsimmon's manager, knowing that his boxer was heavily favored to win, rejected all of the names, thinking that the fight had been fixed in Sharkey's favor.[13]

Gibbs told the San Francisco Call that he spotted Wyatt Earp in the Baldwin Hotel in San Francisco. "I knew that Wyatt Earp was a cool, clear-headed person of unimpeachable reputation, and one who would be perfectly fair to both fighters."[14] He called Earp "the bravest fighter, squarest gambler, best friend and worst enemy ever known on the frontier." Even then, the Fitzsimmons side fought against the choice until the very last minute.[2] The San Francisco Call told a different version of the story, that Lawrence, managing editor of the competing newspaper The Examiner, had suggested Earp to Gibbs.[11] In a personal visit to the offices of The Call, Groom and Gibbs delivered a letter in which they denied that Lawrence played a role in choosing Earp. They stated that they had only met Earp once, when he visited Fitszimmons' training quarters about 10 days before the match. When both Sharkey's and Fitszimmons' managers would not agree on a referee, they chose Earp on the day of the fight because he was "reported to be fearless, cool and honest." They declared that they had sought Earp out in the Baldwin Hotel that afternoon and made the arrangements at that time.[15]

The Fitzsimmons camp strongly resisted Earp as referee, but with no alternative, finally yielded, knowing that 15,000 people had paid between $2 and $10 for tickets.[2]

In the afternoon, the Oakland Tribune ran a front-page story praising Earp as the choice for referee. "Wyatt Earp is one of the bravest and best known sporting men in the country. He has had a varied experience since he retired from office in Arizona and is now in the horse racing business. He is the owner of Don Gara, the horse that started at 100 to 1 and won at the Oakland track the other day."[1]

Sharkey in bed surrounded by Doctors

Wyatt Earp in about 1902 in Nome, Alaska with long-time friend and former Tombstone mayor and editor John Clum.

Earp stopped the bout, and after conferring with both corners for more than 30 seconds, ruled that Fitzsimmons had hit Sharkey below the belt, a violation of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. His decision disqualified Fitzsimmons and Earp handed the check for the prize money to Sharkey's second. College student and future novelist William MacLeod Raine happened to be in San Francisco. Until he saw Earp in the ring, he'd never heard of him. Raine later reported,[21]^: 337

Fitzsimmons knocked Sharkey all over the ring for eight rounds and then landed one to his solar plexus. Sharkey went down and out. Earp walked across to the prostrate man and raised his hand as the victor. There was a moment of silence and then a burst of resentment from thousands of throats.[21]^: 337

Another report said Earp left without raising the hand of the winning boxer.[6] The crowd noise was so loud that most didn't hear Earp render his decision giving the fight to the downed Sharkey. Many only figured out something was wrong when Earp slipped between the ropes and headed for the exit.[3]

His ruling was greeted with loud boos and catcalls.[22] San Francisco Examiner reporter Edward H. Hamilton wrote "The information became general by a slow trickling process, and tier to tier so that by the time the full significance of the situation had reached the throng, Earp was gone."[6]

Very few thought that the punch Earp called was a foul.[6] Sharkey's attendants carried him out as "limp as a rag".[23] The public loudly protested the decision and it was widely believed that there had been no foul and Earp had bet on Sharkey.[21]^: 336 The public had bet heavily on Fitzsimmons and they were livid at the outcome.[8]

"Sailor" Tom Sharkey's manager D. J. Lynch went to the Anglo California National Bank the day after the fight and attempted to cash the certified check for the purse of $14,700 (about $517,000 today).[24] But Fitzsimmons had obtained an injunction against distributing the prize money to Sharkey until the courts could determine who the rightful winner was.[25]^: 115 Bank manager Philip Lilienthal told Lynch that the bank's attorney had advised him he could not pay the check until the issue was resolved in court.[3]

Despite the accusations of a fix, the bookmakers paid off bets on the fight based on Earp's decision as final.[26]

The two main newspapers in town were on opposite sides of the debate. The Examiner supported Earp, but the San Francisco Call unrelentingly attacked Earp's character, both directly and indirectly. They devoted almost all of their front page on December 5 to the fight. They reported that Danny Needham, Sharkey's trainer, had sent telegrams to a number of friends in San Francisco and other cities, saying: "Bet all you have got on Sharkey to win."[27][28] They accused Lawrence of The Examiner as having been in on the fix.

Men foremost in the community, of undoubted integrity and veracity—not a few of such men, but hundreds of them—have denounced and continue to denounce the decision as one of the most bare-faced robberies that has ever been perpetrated in this State under the guise of sport.[28]

The Call mocked Earp, describing how Earp had gone into the ring "...with a Navy revolver a foot long sticking out of his hip pocket," and that Police Captain Wittman "...took a murderous-looking revolver from him in the prize ring in Mechanics' Pavilion."[27][28] They described Earp as a gunslinger: "His past mode of making a livelihood by the use of his 'gun' has been told. He has been a man who has shot down people innumerable, wiped the smoke from off the barrel of his shotgun and cut another notch in the butt, and said 'What a great man am I.'"[29]

On December 4, 1896, Earp appeared in court to face a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. He explained that he always wore a gun as a precaution in the event he met someone he had sent to prison, and because he was carrying a large amount of cash.[6] He later paid a $50 fine.[30] On December 8, a sheriff deputy put a lien on two horses Earp owned for $170.45 for a debt allegedly owed to J. G. Swinnerton of Stockton.[31] Another lawsuit was filed on December 9 by J. H. Levenson of Tombstone, who claimed Earp owed two notes totaling $1110.79, 19 years after leaving Arizona.[32]

The San Francisco district attorney threatened to convene a grand jury.[33] A panel appointed by mayor Washington Bartlett learned that the racehorses Earp was reputed to own were leased, and that he owed $2,121 (about $74,608 today) to a loan company. They also received information that his wife Josephine Earp was a "degenerate horseplayer" and that she frequently took loans out against her jewelry.[6] When asked in court if he had any property, Earp replied, "Nothing, except the clothes on my back."[33]

A caricature of Earp from The New York Herald mocking him after the Sharkey-Fitzimmons fight. The image dogged him the rest of his life.

Over the next month, the local newspapers ran dozens of stories about the controversy and the two major local papers took sides. The Examiner, owned by the Hearst family who had briefly hired Earp as a bodyguard when Hearst visited Tombstone, sided with their man. The San Francisco Call pilloried Earp, running a number of extremely critical stories about him. They lampooned and scrutinized Wyatt for a full month, challenging his integrity, questioning his honesty, and thoroughly vilifying him, insisting he was either blind or a fool.[8][2] They accused Earp of having a financial interest in the outcome.[34]

Earp was parodied in a caricature by The New York Herald as a "cackling, washed-up ruffian pointing a gun at Fitzsimmons with his right hand while slipping a bag of cash to Sharkey with the left", wearing a sombrero with a knife in his teeth. It was reprinted in The San Francisco Call on December 12, 1896. The image and the attacks by the press dogged him the rest of his life.[35][36]

The stories in newspapers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego were reproduced nationwide and read by a public that knew only that Wyatt Earp had been involved in the shootout in Tombstone.[8] A reporter hunted up Bill Buzzard, a miner of dubious reputation from Idaho that Earp had confronted in an Idaho claim jumping feud in 1884, and wrote a story that accused Wyatt of being the brains behind lot-jumping and a real-estate fraud, further tarnishing his reputation.[25]^{: 275–298}

On December 14, 1896, the San Francisco Call quoted a story from the New York Journal by Alfred H. Lewis, "who knew the 'bad men' in Arizona. He said that the Earps in Tombstone were "stage robbers" who "stood up stages and plundered express companies for a livelihood... The Earps, Wyatt, Virgil, Warren and Julian, had treated themselves to many a killing... Warren Earp, who was a stage-company guard, meekly put his hands over his head.... it was from all standpoints a family affair on the part of the Earps. Often they got as high as $25,000.... Virgil, as marshal, would enlist Wyatt, Warren and Julian, together with Curly Bill, their cousin, and hunt the hold-ups."[37]

Judge Sanderson finally ruled on December 17[1] that the hearsay evidence about the alleged fix was insufficient, and that the men engaging in the prizefight were "committing an offense against the law" and thus it was "not the sort of case for a court to consider."[3] He said the contradictory testimony had not provided sufficient grounds for a decision. He granted the motion of Sharkey's counsel to dismiss the injunction. He said that the San Francisco supervisors had no right to license a boxing match, and that the license they issued was an illegal attempt to disobey the law. He told the lawyers that the promoters, the boxers, and their seconds had all broken the law and could be arrested.[1] The bank refused to release all of the funds to Sharkey, withholding 15% due to an injunction. He collected $8,500 of the $10,000 prize money[46] (approximately $351,760 today) but he was not widely accepted as the heavyweight title holder.

When Corbett ended his retirement in 1897 and resumed his fighting career, he was generally recognized as the still-reigning heavyweight champion. On March 17, 1897, in Carson City, Nevada, Fitzsimmons knocked Corbett out in round 14, gaining the heavyweight crown.[5] Corbett, hoping to record a win that would put him in contention for the heavyweight title once again, met Sharkey again on November 22, 1898. Sharkey was on the verge of victory when Corbett's cornerman McVey entered the ring in the ninth round. Referee Kelly promptly declared all bets are off, disqualified Corbett, and awarded the bout to Sharkey.[5]^: 110 Fitzsimmons and Sharkey met again on July 24, 1900, and Fitzsimmons won with a knockout. Fitzsimmons retained the title until May 13, 1905, when he lost to James J. Jeffries.[5]

Eight years later, Dr. B. Brookes Lee was arrested in Portland, Oregon. He had been accused of treating Sharkey to make it appear that he had been fouled by Fitzsimmons. Lee said, "I fixed Sharkey up to look as if he had been fouled. How? Well, that is something I do not care to reveal, but I will assert that it was done—that is enough. There is no doubt that Fitzsimmons was entitled to the decision and did not foul Sharkey. I got $1,000 for my part in the affair."[4] In December 1907, Lee was charged with murder after he was accused of stabbing a man in the eye. They were both apparently attracted to the same woman.[47]