George Dixon was the worlds first black champion at any weight. Boxrec has his record as 65-30-48. The International hall of fame has it as 50-26-44. dixons manager claimed befor his deat that Dixon had over 800 "unofficial" fights sometimes fighting as many as 15 time a week.

No matter which account you choose to believe Dixons record is somewhat decieving as he was often robbed of the decision due to racial times, or forced to carry a fighter if he wanted to get paid. He often fought where if no knockout was scored the fight was declared a draw.

In 1901 Dixon fought and battered Abe Attell only to get a draw when the referee resused to call him the winner. According to historian Traci Calis, 90% of Dixons losses and draws should have been wins. That would of given him a staggering record.

Dixon fought a who's who of great fighters from late 19th and early 20th century. Jim Driscoll, Abe Atell, Young Corbett II, Pedlar Palmer, Young Griffo and Terry McGovern.

He also founded the "Black school of pugilism" where such fighters as Joe Gans, Jack Blackburn and Jack Johnson learned from him.

Dixon is largely forgotten today, but still resides near the top of almost any top 10 all time bantamweight list and is still probably a top 50 all time p4p fighter to people who seriously follow boxings history.

If any of you professional or amatuer historians have anything to add, or a comment, it would be appreciated.

George Dixon was the worlds first black champion at any weight. Boxrec has his record as 65-30-48. The International hall of fame has it as 50-26-44. dixons manager claimed befor his deat that Dixon had over 800 "unofficial" fights sometimes fighting as many as 15 time a week.

No matter which account you choose to believe Dixons record is somewhat decieving as he was often robbed of the decision due to racial times, or forced to carry a fighter if he wanted to get paid. He often fought where if no knockout was scored the fight was declared a draw.

In 1901 Dixon fought and battered Abe Attell only to get a draw when the referee resused to call him the winner. According to historian Traci Calis, 90% of Dixons losses and draws should have been wins. That would of given him a staggering record.

Dixon fought a who's who of great fighters from late 19th and early 20th century. Jim Driscoll, Abe Atell, Young Corbett II, Pedlar Palmer, Young Griffo and Terry McGovern.

He also founded the "Black school of pugilism" where such fighters as Joe Gans, Jack Blackburn and Jack Johnson learned from him.

Dixon is largely forgotten today, but still resides near the top of almost any top 10 all time bantamweight list and is still probably a top 50 all time p4p fighter to people who seriously follow boxings history.

If any of you professional or amatuer historians have anything to add, or a comment, it would be appreciated.

George Dixon was a two-time featherweight champion of the world. He held his first title for seven years, from 1890-1897, and his second reign lasted from 1898-1900. He was the first Black world champion, and unfortunately he died at the tender age of 38. My father used to tell me that he was robbed several times in his career, yet he was able to be Featherweight champion of the world for nearly 9 years before Jack Johnson began his legendary reign as the Heavyweight King. George Dixon is in the Boxing Hall of Fame, and I feel not only is he a top 10 bantam of all time, but a top 10 feather as well. Thank you for bringing him to everyone's attention. I hope someone can explain to me why he died so young.

I hope someone can explain to me why he died so young.

Dixon's last days were one of the many sad stories so often seen throughout boxing history, and to make a long story short, he was a serious alcoholic in his last days and his heart gave out on him just a couple of days after checking himself into a hospital.

One of the saddest things is this great champion almost found himself buried in one of those potter's fields because, before his death, he was basically homeless, broke, and virtually all alone after all of his previous "friends" had abandoned him (Dixon was notorious for his generousity and helped his "friends" whenever possible with his ring earnings). Fortunately though, the fight community came forth with the money for a proper burial, including Joe Gans, who was said to have bought the monument for his grave.


P.S. Thanks for starting this thread, Jab, on who was so often called the "greatest little fighter" of those early days (many refered to him without the "little", as well, and simply called him the best of his time regardless of size), and I'll try to add some good things to it tomorrow if time permits.

Dixon's last days were one of the many sad stories so often seen throughout boxing history, and to make a long story short, he was a serious alcoholic in his last days and his heart gave out on him just a couple of days after checking himself into a hospital.

One of the saddest things is this great champion almost found himself buried in one of those potter's fields because, before his death, he was basically homeless, broke, and virtually all alone after all of his previous "friends" had abandoned him (Dixon was notorious for his generousity and helped his "friends" whenever possible with his ring earnings). Fortunately though, the fight community came forth with the money for a proper burial, including Joe Gans, who was said to have bought the monument for his grave.

Its almost unbeleivable how good many of these fighters were under the circumstances of the day. Alcoholism, disease and sickness, injuries etc. One thing that seems to have not changed is the hangers on who disappear as soon as the money is gone. That will never change.

Thanks for the info, Yogi.

P.S. Thanks for starting this thread, Jab, on who was so often called the "greatest little fighter" of those early days (many refered to him without the "little", as well, and simply called him the best of his time regardless of size), and I'll try to add some good things to it tomorrow if time permits.

:fing02: We'll be looking forward to it!

:fing02: We'll be looking forward to it!
Hey JAB. have you seen the footage of George Dixon that I posted on one of my threads ?? -??????????????????-------------It's great stuff !!!!!

Bumped for those who're interested and have an opinion on Dixon, his times, career or life.

Hey JAB. have you seen the footage of George Dixon that I posted on one of my threads ?? -??????????????????-------------It's great stuff !!!!!

I missed it bro. Feel free to repost it though, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested.

Great thread jab..

Dixon was one of the pioneers of scientific boxing...many years after his retirement the man was often hailed as the pioneer of scientific boxing...One of the best little fighters of all time.

here are some excerpts from an article I read long ago..

"
Dixon had many admirers in the white boxing community, and old-timers of later eras would fondly remember his career. In 1893 he wrote an autobiography, A Lesson in Boxing. But some of the same racial controversies that swirled around the career of heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson also plagued the high-living, sharp-dressing Dixon, who married the sister of his manager O'Rourke. After he knocked out Jack Skelly at the Olympia Club in New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 6, 1892, the club banned mixed-race bouts. His fight against "Torpedo" Billy Murphy on December 15, 1893, ended in a riot.

Still, some of Dixon's fights were considered classics. An example was Dixon's 25-round draw against Australia's Young Griffo on January 19, 1895. Those who attended the fight on Coney Island in New York, noted the Washington Post in 1915, "had the opportunity of witnessing an encounter between two boys who have certainly never been excelled, and probably never equaled, in the matter of ring science."




"
On January 9, 1900, Dixon came out on the losing end of an eight-round knockout at the hands of "Terrible Terry" McGovern in New York. Although Dixon claimed that McGovern had not made weight for the fight, he lost again to McGovern later that year. Dixon fought Abe Attell for the featherweight title in 1901, but his long period of dominance was over. "Loose living," noted the Washington Post, "had made inroads on his constitution." The aging fighter toured England from late 1902 through 1905, hoping to stave off financial problems that had left him with little more in the way of assets than a home he owned in Boston; he was reported to have burned through winnings of more than $100,000. After a December 10, 1906, loss to a boxer named Monk the Newsboy, Dixon retired from the ring.

Hospitalized because of complications from alcoholism, Dixon died in New York on January 6, 1909"

He was also involved in a cool 70 rounds fight with Charles "Cal" McCarthy in 1890...yea 70 rounds.

John L sullivan....one of the biggest racists in boxing....

had had enough with drinking and had quit, in speaking out against drinking he befirended George Dixon. Dixon would go on to say that John L sullivan was the only man in puglisim that hadnt turned him down.



also it seems george dixion is not only the worlds first african american belt holder, but also the worlds first holder of multiple belts, and the worlds first boxer to lose and regain his title in the ring.

also it seems george dixion is not only the worlds first african american belt holder, but also the worlds first holder of multiple belts, and the worlds first boxer to lose and regain his title in the ring.

He's Canadian, he was the first black man and the first Canadian to hold a title, first African American would be Joe Gans.

He's Canadian, he was the first black man and the first Canadian to hold a title, first African American would be Joe Gans.

i was going to say black but i though African American was alittle more PC.

as far as semantics, canada is in north america.

Great thread jab..

Dixon was one of the pioneers of scientific boxing...many years after his retirement the man was often hailed as the pioneer of scientific boxing...One of the best little fighters of all time.

here are some excerpts from an article I read long ago..

"
Dixon had many admirers in the white boxing community, and old-timers of later eras would fondly remember his career. In 1893 he wrote an autobiography, A Lesson in Boxing. But some of the same racial controversies that swirled around the career of heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson also plagued the high-living, sharp-dressing Dixon, who married the sister of his manager O'Rourke. After he knocked out Jack Skelly at the Olympia Club in New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 6, 1892, the club banned mixed-race bouts. His fight against "Torpedo" Billy Murphy on December 15, 1893, ended in a riot.

Still, some of Dixon's fights were considered classics. An example was Dixon's 25-round draw against Australia's Young Griffo on January 19, 1895. Those who attended the fight on Coney Island in New York, noted the Washington Post in 1915, "had the opportunity of witnessing an encounter between two boys who have certainly never been excelled, and probably never equaled, in the matter of ring science."




"
On January 9, 1900, Dixon came out on the losing end of an eight-round knockout at the hands of "Terrible Terry" McGovern in New York. Although Dixon claimed that McGovern had not made weight for the fight, he lost again to McGovern later that year. Dixon fought Abe Attell for the featherweight title in 1901, but his long period of dominance was over. "Loose living," noted the Washington Post, "had made inroads on his constitution." The aging fighter toured England from late 1902 through 1905, hoping to stave off financial problems that had left him with little more in the way of assets than a home he owned in Boston; he was reported to have burned through winnings of more than $100,000. After a December 10, 1906, loss to a boxer named Monk the Newsboy, Dixon retired from the ring.

Hospitalized because of complications from alcoholism, Dixon died in New York on January 6, 1909"

He was also involved in a cool 70 rounds fight with Charles "Cal" McCarthy in 1890...yea 70 rounds.

Good stuff, thanks bro!

John L sullivan....one of the biggest racists in boxing....

had had enough with drinking and had quit, in speaking out against drinking he befirended George Dixon. Dixon would go on to say that John L sullivan was the only man in puglisim that hadnt turned him down.



also it seems george dixion is not only the worlds first african american belt holder, but also the worlds first holder of multiple belts, and the worlds first boxer to lose and regain his title in the ring.

While I'm not defending Sullivan or saying he wasn't racist, he was more a product of his time. I can't find it now, but I posted an article about Sullivan and Jack Johnson on the old AOL boards years ago. The gist of it was Sullivan was hired to cover the Johnson-Jeffries fight. Both him and Johnson detested one another and when it was time to interview neither would speak to the other. It was suggested they pass notes and soon they were both furiously scribbling insults to one another. After awhile both started laughing and soon became friendly.

I never found another story to corroborate that, but John L. Did have high praise for Johnson's ring ability. That said, my point as it seems to me is that Sullivan was willing to get to know a black man and give him a chance when earlier in life he wouldn't. Does that make sense?

While I'm not defending Sullivan or saying he wasn't racist, he was more a product of his time. I can't find it now, but I posted an article about Sullivan and Jack Johnson on the old AOL boards years ago. The gist of it was Sullivan was hired to cover the Johnson-Jeffries fight. Both him and Johnson detested one another and when it was time to interview neither would speak to the other. It was suggested they pass notes and soon they were both furiously scribbling insults to one another. After awhile both started laughing and soon became friendly.

I never found another story to corroborate that, but John L. Did have high praise for Johnson's ring ability. That said, my point as it seems to me is that Sullivan was willing to get to know a black man and give him a chance when earlier in life he wouldn't. Does that make sense?

i disagree, i think its just that people didnt like jack johnson. Joe louis didnt have anything against black people, but he made sure johnson had nothing to do with his camp.

i disagree, i think its just that people didnt like jack johnson. Joe louis didnt have anything against black people, but he made sure johnson had nothing to do with his camp.


Johnson hated Louis, and trashed him every chance he had. Many people felt he was jealous of Louis.

Johnson hated Louis, and trashed him every chance he had. Many people felt he was jealous of Louis.

wasnt that due to louis turning down johnson as his coach?

like im sure johnson was jelous, but didnt johnson offer to train louis, and louis turned him down, thus the jelousy and hatred insueded due to being turned down.

wasnt that due to louis turning down johnson as his coach?

like im sure johnson was jelous, but didnt johnson offer to train louis, and louis turned him down, thus the jelousy and hatred insueded due to being turned down.

The impression I got from reading Johnson's book was that he wanted to always be the greatest (and only) Black heavyweight champion. His ego was gigantic.

I missed it bro. Feel free to repost it though, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested.
Sure,, I know I have it somewhere,, the film is of an older Dixon, but is surprisingly little damaged, and it does back up Greatest1942's claim about the scientific thing,, also you do get the sense that he was very very tough and packed decent power in both hands. it was mentioned earlier that his end was a sad one,, as indeed it was for most of those great little guys of that era like Griffo, Nelson, Wolgast and co,,, Griffo ended his days as a homeless drunk on the streets of New York far from his native Australia,,, Wolgast ended up in a mental asylum........... It went with the territory I suppose,, just think of the conditions they fought under (20 plus round fights and tiny gloves)....................... ....................... George Dixon was great,,,, in an era studded with great fighters from three continents, and in an era where Boxing was usually the only show in town,

Johnson hated Louis, and trashed him every chance he had. Many people felt he was jealous of Louis.
Yeah,, and you can see why I suppose,, Joe Louis woulda killed Jack,... it would have been short I think,, under 5 rounds would be my guess.

Great thread jab..

Dixon was one of the pioneers of scientific boxing...many years after his retirement the man was often hailed as the pioneer of scientific boxing...One of the best little fighters of all time.

here are some excerpts from an article I read long ago..

"
Dixon had many admirers in the white boxing community, and old-timers of later eras would fondly remember his career. In 1893 he wrote an autobiography, A Lesson in Boxing. But some of the same racial controversies that swirled around the career of heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson also plagued the high-living, sharp-dressing Dixon, who married the sister of his manager O'Rourke. After he knocked out Jack Skelly at the Olympia Club in New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 6, 1892, the club banned mixed-race bouts. His fight against "Torpedo" Billy Murphy on December 15, 1893, ended in a riot.

Still, some of Dixon's fights were considered classics. An example was Dixon's 25-round draw against Australia's Young Griffo on January 19, 1895. Those who attended the fight on Coney Island in New York, noted the Washington Post in 1915, "had the opportunity of witnessing an encounter between two boys who have certainly never been excelled, and probably never equaled, in the matter of ring science."




"
On January 9, 1900, Dixon came out on the losing end of an eight-round knockout at the hands of "Terrible Terry" McGovern in New York. Although Dixon claimed that McGovern had not made weight for the fight, he lost again to McGovern later that year. Dixon fought Abe Attell for the featherweight title in 1901, but his long period of dominance was over. "Loose living," noted the Washington Post, "had made inroads on his constitution." The aging fighter toured England from late 1902 through 1905, hoping to stave off financial problems that had left him with little more in the way of assets than a home he owned in Boston; he was reported to have burned through winnings of more than $100,000. After a December 10, 1906, loss to a boxer named Monk the Newsboy, Dixon retired from the ring.

Hospitalized because of complications from alcoholism, Dixon died in New York on January 6, 1909"

He was also involved in a cool 70 rounds fight with Charles "Cal" McCarthy in 1890...yea 70 rounds.
As always, nice post mate, (4 months later I still think Darcy beats Gibbons but...... : )... )

18 September 1893

Great Fighters

Dixon and Plimmer Review Their Recent Battle


There are losers and winners. If a man is squarely beaten in an athletic contest of any kind he has no right to complain. If however he thinks an injustice has been done to him he has the privilege which Americans as well as Britons usually assume – To growl. I do not wish to be considered as entering the baby plea, but I think the action of Referee O'Donnell in awarding- the decision to Billy Plimmer, of England, over me, on the occasion of our recent four round contest at Madison Square garden, was not exactly in accordance with the strict rules of fair play.

It is not fair to take away the reputation a man has spent years In building up upon the result of a four round bout, unless one of the contestants is either completely knocked out or is worsted at every point in the encounter. This principle has ever obtained in this country, now the home of manly art. The same rule holds good in England and Australia, the two next best fighting countries on earth.

Had not that rule prevailed John L. Sullivan; Peter Jackson, Jack Dempsey and Jack McAuliffe would have had their reputations seriously endangered if not irretrievably lost on more than one occasion. When John L. Sullivan broke his arm on Patsey Cardiff's hard head some years ago, it was all he could do to stay the four rounds and Cardiff more than held his own. ,yet the referee called it a draw. so to with Peter Jackson , when ill prepared for a bruising contest, he went up against Joe Goddard in Australia for four rounds. Peter, so printed reports say, had the better of the battle for four rounds. In the next four big Joe, these same reports maintain, reversed the tables and had slightly the call on Peter.Yet the referee decided the affair a draw.

Jack Dempsey had twice or thrice the same experience in his career and not many weeks ago bold Jack McAnliffe had a shade the worst of it in a four round bout at Philadelphia with Horace Leeds, a comparative novice.yet the referee in Dempsey’s case and the referee in that of McAuliffe did not take away their reputations by deciding against them.

No finish fights alone should either make or mar a man. A champions reputation should only be won or lost in a battle to the end. Four,six,eight or ten round bouts should not count, many a champion has had far and away the worst of it in the first part of a battle and yet won handily at the termination of the engagement.

Witness the famous battles between John Morrissey and John C. Heenan, Tom Sayers and Bill Perry , the “Tipton Slasher”, and Tom King and jem Mace. In all of these contests Morrissey,Sayers and king had Away the worst of the encounter in the beginning, yet they won the good fight.

How unjust in these cases it would have been in the event of magisterial interference at the first part of the fray to have given the stakes and the title of champion to the man apparently having the better of it.

So with limited round contests it is unjust to take away a champions good name even though he should have a bit the worst of it. In these affairs the widest possible latitude should be permited and the greatest generosity exercised by the referee.

I am not only willing but anxious to fight Billy Plimmer to a finish.If I am as fortunate in my coming battle with Solly Smith, of California, for the featherweight Championship of the world as I was in my contests with the Champion of America, England and Australia I will lose no time in making overtures to the little Englishman. I am willing to meet him half way in any plan looking to a meeting.as a champion in my class I cannot be expected to make all the concessions , as Billy, or some indiscreet friend for him, says I must. It takes two to make a contract and he must make some concessions as well as I.

And here let me correct a false impression which prevails in some quarters many people believe that because Billy Plimmer got the decision over me at our recent contest that he is now the champion featherweight of the world. This is not so .I still retain that title and will for some time yet, unless Solly Smith lowers my colours on 25th September.

Here to, let me correct another impression which fortunately only a few people entertain, viz., that my contest with Plimmer was a fake and that I was laying low for favorable odds in my match with Smith and a finish battle with Plimmer. There is not the slightest ground for any such belief. I would not throw a fight for all the money there is in the national treasury. I have been on the level all my life, and will remain so whether I am victor or vanquished.

GEORGE E. DIXON

Sportsmen throughout the country appear to be astonished at the victory I recently achieved over George Dixon, The featherweight champion of the world.

I can honestly say that the result, Gratifying as it was did not astonish your humble servant a little bit. Not that I am in any way afflicted with that disease known as the swelled head or have an undue appreciation of my own powers, but I had made a study of Dixon and knew to a nicety just about what he could do. As the boys say I was on to all his curves and had a very fair idea how to meet them.

Indeed I have been studying Dixon ever since I came to this country two years ago, and had taken his measure Just as accurately as Jim Corbett had that of the great John L.. Sullivan before their memorable battle in New Orleans .

I had tried several times before my late meeting with Dixon to get on a match with him but he could never agree on the question of weight. He is a featherweight and I am a bantam. He usually fights at one hundred and eighteen pounds and I at one hundred and ten. To insure the recent contest: I was compelled to give away weight and agree to box the colored prodigy at one hundred and eighteen pounds.

Of course I did not reduce myself to my regular fighting weight for this engagement. I wished to come as close to Dixon's as I could and yet be neither fat nor slow I simply hardened my flesh by exercise judiciously taken and cultivated quick action both as to hands and feet by punching a rubber bag jumping the rope. The reason for this is obvious. The bout was limited to four rounds and fast fighting was sure to come the moment we crossed arms. naturally, other things being equal, strength, quickness, cleverness, height and reach, the heavier man is sure to get the better of the rushes, and that always counts with the referee.

Dixon had every advantage over me except those of skill, strength and quickness. he was taller, longer in the reach and a bit heavier. Knowing that Dixon' would come at me 1 had studied out a plan of action. It was not to retreat but simply duck, parry and step out of harm's way when he shot out his "wonderful left" and followed it with one of his circular right hand swings. That method of procedure I only intended to follow the first round so as to size up my adversary's reach and ability to “get there."

After that I meant to meet him every time and I think the public will admit I succeeded in doing so. When Dixon would lead with that long- left of his instead of stepping-back I would step forward quickly and counter him. The colored boy is a round-handed hitter, the same as John L. Sullivan and disciples of his school. I on the contrary hit out as straight as it is possible for a man to do, and the result was that my blow would reach its destination first. That stands to reason, as it is a simple geometric proposition that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points and to describe a curve certainly takes longer than it does to draw a straight line.

Some smart people affect to believe that Dixon did not try his best to do me. These doubting- Thomases say: "Oh-it was a game of O'Rourke's to affect the betting in Dixon’s. coming match with Solly Smith, of California, and to draw Plimmer into a finish contest. If this were so, O'Rourke, Dixon and myself would be better actors than Booth, Forrest and Irving. O'Rourke became as pale as a corpse when he saw me besting his boy, and Dixon and your humble servant hit,countered and cross countered with an earnestness, force and precision that no “Fakirs” no matter how much they boxed together ever were known to do, and Dixon and myself best know we never met each other before in the squared circle.

No, the idea is absurd.Dixon was always on the level, and Tom O’Rourke would not Have his boy whipped for $20,000. defeat to Dixon meant a disarrangement of their plans for the future and a tremendous falling off in their yearly revenues. The public Has no use for a loser John L Sullivan is the only beaten champion who retains A warm spot in the popular heart, and that is due wholly to his many good qualities as a man.

BILLY PLIMMER

I missed it bro. Feel free to repost it though, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one interested.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6foQEfkFHFM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<IFRAME height=315 src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6foQEfkFHFM?rel=0" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

How small was that ring? It looks like they're fighting in a shoebox.

Dixon's wide flinging arm punches and keeping his head straight up wouldn't make for a successful transition 100 years later, tbh.

How small was that ring? It looks like they're fighting in a shoebox.

Dixon's wide flinging arm punches and keeping his head straight up wouldn't make for a successful transition 100 years later, tbh.
it is a very small ring and is obviously an exhibition bout showcasing an old George, I can see your point about his style, but there are things about these old timers that the moderns simply dont compare in, like stamina and the out and out toughness of the old timers.... put it this way mate,, 12 rd fights vs the 20 plus of those days,,, and the differences in glove sizes for example, make it a bit like comparing Rugby League of today to that of the 1930's..... an entirely different sport.

it is a very small ring and is obviously an exhibition bout showcasing an old George, I can see your point about his style, but there are things about these old timers that the moderns simply dont compare in, like stamina and the out and out toughness of the old timers.... put it this way mate,, 12 rd fights vs the 20 plus of those days,,, and the differences in glove sizes for example, make it a bit like comparing Rugby League of today to that of the 1930's..... an entirely different sport.
if you are not an Aussie, just substitute Rugby League to say,, gridiron (do they still call it that ?)... RL is actually even more different to the 30's than boxing today is from boxing 100 years ago................. there have been over 100 rule changes in our football since 1908 when the game started. those old time RL footballers were monsters,,, they were freaking tough, some guys played out whole games with broken arms, collar bones, jaws and in the case of the immortal Frank Burge (1920's) a broken leg (obviously a minor fracture,,,, but just imagine what being tackled or tackling musta been like with those injuries,, oh man oh man).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6foQEfkFHFM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank you my friend.

it is a very small ring and is obviously an exhibition bout showcasing an old George, I can see your point about his style, but there are things about these old timers that the moderns simply dont compare in, like stamina and the out and out toughness of the old timers.... put it this way mate,, 12 rd fights vs the 20 plus of those days,,, and the differences in glove sizes for example, make it a bit like comparing Rugby League of today to that of the 1930's..... an entirely different sport.
I've always been sceptical of the toughness and stamina thing. If you go 20 rounds then you fight at a slower pace. Mayweather at the weekend didn't look tired at all fighting 12 rounds at a decent pace and looked like another 3 wouldn't be out of the question. There is no doubt on my mind top fighters of today could go 20 rounds if they were asked to just by slowing down their pace.

As for the heart or toughness thing, I guess fighters were allowed to be tougher back then. Look at Moore vs Durelle I posted. Today, would Moore have been allowed by his corner/referee to survive that first round, probably not. It's just the new regulations of the sport that make men appear a little less tougher. I do think if you put someone like Margarito in the 20's he'd happily take beatings and keep fighting on like was typical of the era. All great boxers have great hearts, it's something that's needed.

Again put someone like Pacquiao or whatever in the ring in the 10's with the same rules I think he does alright. He's tough enough to deal with a longer fight, smaller gloves and messy infighting after a few adjustments.

I've always been sceptical of the toughness and stamina thing. If you go 20 rounds then you fight at a slower pace. Mayweather at the weekend didn't look tired at all fighting 12 rounds at a decent pace and looked like another 3 wouldn't be out of the question. There is no doubt on my mind top fighters of today could go 20 rounds if they were asked to just by slowing down their pace.

As for the heart or toughness thing, I guess fighters were allowed to be tougher back then. Look at Moore vs Durelle I posted. Today, would Moore have been allowed by his corner/referee to survive that first round, probably not. It's just the new regulations of the sport that make men appear a little less tougher. I do think if you put someone like Margarito in the 20's he'd happily take beatings and keep fighting on like was typical of the era. All great boxers have great hearts, it's something that's needed.

Again put someone like Pacquiao or whatever in the ring in the 10's with the same rules I think he does alright. He's tough enough to deal with a longer fight, smaller gloves and messy infighting after a few adjustments.
That can be argued to an extent, and yes there are always throwbacks in all eras. But you must also acknowledge that a guy like mayweather is gonna lose some fights, and I think he cant just make a smooth adjustment to 20 round fights,,, and believe it or not there were guys who fought at a fast pace through 20 rounds, hell the pace that Wolgast and nelson go at for a large majority of those 40 rounds is simply incredible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I stand by my quote that the short fights have created far more "dancers" (of which I do not count Mayweather),,,,,, actually there are certain aspects of Floyds stance and the way he holds his hands that is sort of old school....... and also I believe some old timers would have had more success today than they did under the old conditions//// Mike Gibbons and Gene Tunney would be great today (as they were in their own time),, but Tunney would have had to settle for the cruisers. Battling Nelson on the other hand would have lost so many on points today, but come out without ever being hurt of course............. the one thing you dont take into consideration is the having to have 13 fights in one year against elite fighters,, as a result, Floyd Mayweather hasn't had the wear and tear on his body that say,,,,, Sam Langford had had at that age,, also,, I doubt if he'd make the sort of money he is used to back then.

That can be argued to an extent, and yes there are always throwbacks in all eras. But you must also acknowledge that a guy like mayweather is gonna lose some fights, and I think he cant just make a smooth adjustment to 20 round fights,,, and believe it or not there were guys who fought at a fast pace through 20 rounds, hell the pace that Wolgast and nelson go at for a large majority of those 40 rounds is simply incredible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I stand by my quote that the short fights have created far more "dancers" (of which I do not count Mayweather),,,,,, actually there are certain aspects of Floyds stance and the way he holds his hands that is sort of old school....... and also I believe some old timers would have had more success today than they did under the old conditions//// Mike Gibbons and Gene Tunney would be great today (as they were in their own time),, but Tunney would have had to settle for the cruisers. Battling Nelson on the other hand would have lost so many on points today, but come out without ever being hurt of course............. the one thing you dont take into consideration is the having to have 13 fights in one year against elite fighters,, as a result, Floyd Mayweather hasn't had the wear and tear on his body that say,,,,, Sam Langford had had at that age,, also,, I doubt if he'd make the sort of money he is used to back then.
But I did love the way Mayweather punished hatton,, got a lot of pleasure out of that. I am sure I saw a smirk on Kostya Tszyus face that night also,,, that Kostya turns up all over the place.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6foQEfkFHFM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was an exhibition...by this time Dixon had already passed it.

Good stuff, thanks bro!

Thanks bro..nice to see you Barn and Mcgoorty in the thick of things...

That can be argued to an extent, and yes there are always throwbacks in all eras. But you must also acknowledge that a guy like mayweather is gonna lose some fights, and I think he cant just make a smooth adjustment to 20 round fights,,, and believe it or not there were guys who fought at a fast pace through 20 rounds, hell the pace that Wolgast and nelson go at for a large majority of those 40 rounds is simply incredible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I stand by my quote that the short fights have created far more "dancers" (of which I do not count Mayweather),,,,,, actually there are certain aspects of Floyds stance and the way he holds his hands that is sort of old school....... and also I believe some old timers would have had more success today than they did under the old conditions//// Mike Gibbons and Gene Tunney would be great today (as they were in their own time),, but Tunney would have had to settle for the cruisers. Battling Nelson on the other hand would have lost so many on points today, but come out without ever being hurt of course............. the one thing you dont take into consideration is the having to have 13 fights in one year against elite fighters,, as a result, Floyd Mayweather hasn't had the wear and tear on his body that say,,,,, Sam Langford had had at that age,, also,, I doubt if he'd make the sort of money he is used to back then.
I agree with regards to the consistency. If Floyd fought at the frequency of those guys then he's picking up losses, Godzilla would. Another advantage I feel these guys have is everything is an event. If you hurt your arm slightly and it was nagging you, you can easily call the fight off. Old timers had no such liberty and were forced to fight with various ailments and minor injuries. Which when you fight at a high and equal level, is going to affect you.

I always thought the Wolgast vs Nelson intensity was exaggerated somewhat. I believe they only have 3 rounds or so published and fair enough they look fast in that but, nothing says they were at such a ferocious pace the previous rounds. It's like taking round 6 from De La Hoya vs Quartey and using that as our measuring stick for what the rest of the fight was.

I honestly think Mayweather is that awesome at adjusting and figuring things out pre and mid fight he could hop into a 20 round fight right now.

I agree with regards to the consistency. If Floyd fought at the frequency of those guys then he's picking up losses, Godzilla would. Another advantage I feel these guys have is everything is an event. If you hurt your arm slightly and it was nagging you, you can easily call the fight off. Old timers had no such liberty and were forced to fight with various ailments and minor injuries. Which when you fight at a high and equal level, is going to affect you.

I always thought the Wolgast vs Nelson intensity was exaggerated somewhat. I believe they only have 3 rounds or so published and fair enough they look fast in that but, nothing says they were at such a ferocious pace the previous rounds. It's like taking round 6 from De La Hoya vs Quartey and using that as our measuring stick for what the rest of the fight was.

I honestly think Mayweather is that awesome at adjusting and figuring things out pre and mid fight he could hop into a 20 round fight right now.
I was talking about Rugby League players on one thread earlier and it occurs to me that those guys are more like the old time boxers that modern boxers. We are talking about blokes who play an intensely rough contact sport and from a young age are conditioned to play with injuries, as you say the modern boxer superstars are not inclined to fight on with an injury. but of course must have had to in some stage of their development. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I ever have a son, I would much rather him take up Boxing than to play Rugby League simply because it is somewhat safer,, virtually all professional League players have got artificial knees and have had a hip replacement, besides I think there is more nobility in it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ive seen Nelson V Wolgast and there was at least 8 rounds that I've seen and the pace never let up, apart from one round where the pace slackened, which does fit with the written account I have posted on a thread, and none of the rounds on film I saw were early rounds, I believe they are well past the 20th, and the written account says that those first 10 rounds were frantic. Your comment on Mayweather making the adjustment to 20 rds, may be right,, maybe not, but I do believe that to fight a good fight over 20 rds would take some intelligence,, and a guy would always need a plan A, plan B and a plan C I believe (although Im no expert on 20 or more round fights, who is these days)... nothing anyone can say here would ever convince me that 12 round bouts are better than 15 or 20 round fights,,, I've seen many full 15 rd fights and many of them really started to become exciting... after the 12th. It is very very rare that I see great fights these days on a par with the likes of Louis V Conn.... etc..... so its official,, I ain;t a fan of 12 rd fights... and I hate seeing most of them fizzle out to a decision, I say lets go back to 20 rounders.. at least experiment with it,, as long as both fighters are willing, I think many of todays slicker types may realise that by say the 8th that another 12 rds to go may force them to go for the early route... a KO,...

Good reading so far im poor enough on the history off the sport so threads like this are an enjoyable substitute to what Floyd had for breakfast or the indentity of Manny's new prostitute