Under the Marquios of Queensbury rules which were instated in 1867, who was the best p4p fighter of the 19th century? Was it Joe Gans? Bob Fitzsimmons? John L. Sullivan? George Dixon? Young Griffo? Who do you have, and Why?

Under the Marquios of Queensbury rules which were instated in 1867, who was the best p4p fighter of the 19th century? Was it Joe Gans? Bob Fitzsimmons? John L. Sullivan? George Dixon? Young Griffo? Who do you have, and Why?

Really hard to say as the only existing fight footage is from the 1890s, and details are sketchy prior to the point when Sullivan's reign brought the sport a certain celebrity. I'm not even certain how widespread high-level Marquess of Queensbury fights were until the 1880s. Basically the question becomes "who was the greatest of the 1890s."

John L Sullivan of course

Bare Knuckle boxing champ....I think that makes him "harder then a coffin nail"

whos knows how well he would have handled corbett in his prime no no wait.....He would have destroyed corbett in his prime.

I'll go with Gans, even tho he wasn't Champion until the 20th century. First runner up would be Dixon. And if the rumours are true that Dixon actually had around ~1000 fights...with a 90% probability of being robbed in all of his defeats...gotta go with Dixon. Second runner up is Peter Jackson, who was so clearly better than Sullivan at the time that it's not even funny. Even the white establishment back then could recognize this fact. Third runner up, Bob Fitzsimmons. Truly remarkable what he could do from Middleweight to Heavyweight.

perhaps better but definatly not clearly, and only perhaps better due to the greater number of queensbury rules fights and perhaps because he wasnt a heavy drinker

I'll go with Corbett! Hes credited with inventing the left hook, such a good idea.

What sketchy footage there is does show him to be a fairly slick boxer and hell, even post prime he gave Jeffries good fights.

There was a really good highlight video floating round about two months ago, showed an old Corbett mock sparring, looked in good shape for his age well into the 20th century.

I'll go with Corbett! Hes credited with inventing the left hook, such a good idea.

What sketchy footage there is does show him to be a fairly slick boxer and hell, even post prime he gave Jeffries good fights.

There was a really good highlight video floating round about two months ago, showed an old Corbett mock sparring, looked in good shape for his age well into the 20th century.

I wouldn't go with Corbett, but I do agree Corbett > Sullivan.

Bob Fitzsimmons: An absolute assasin at Middleweight, won the Heavyweight title not weighing much more than he did as a Middleweight, then wins the new Light-Heavyweight title when well past prime.

PS. He was destroying Jeffries in their first fight before breaking both hands.

Poet

Under the Marquios of Queensbury rules which were instated in 1867, who was the best p4p fighter of the 19th century? Was it Joe Gans? Bob Fitzsimmons? John L. Sullivan? George Dixon? Young Griffo? Who do you have, and Why?

Bob Fitzsimmons, the original p4p baby.

Boxing's first triple crown champion and still one of the great p4p punchers. Joe Gans and Kid McCoy used to take menial jobs at his training camp just so they could watch him up close, and what greater compliment for the man than that?

There is alot of legend surrounding Joe Gans's ability. I personally dont recall seeing him on film. Is there much footage? Joe Louis's trainer Chappy Blackburn taught Louis to use his left like Gans. Must have been good then!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/12/05/boxing_fitz_273x400.jpg
Bob Fitzsimmons was a tall, lanky and explosive middleweight puncher. He was boxing’s first triple-crown champion gaining the world’s middleweight (1891-1897), light-heavyweight (1903-1905) and heavyweight (1897-1899) crowns during a career that spanned a long 34 years. His record was 55-8-16 7 ND with 48 knockouts, although he claimed to have as many as 300 fights all unrecorded.

Despite being no more than a middleweight he carried a heavyweight’s upper body build and a heavyweight’s strong punch. He was experienced and clever. As an excellent feinter he knew how to draw his opponent’s into his deadly blows. He was steadfast, patient and had excellent accuracy in striking vital points.

Early ring historian Sandy Griswold said in the Dec 24, 1904 National Police Gazette, “He knows all the vulnerable spots of the human anatomy as well as the most erudite surgeon in the business and has a greater variety of effective blows than any fighter who ever lived.”

There is no question that Fitzsimmons had a heavyweights punching power. In 1893, he knocked out seven men in one night and accomplished the feat in under nineteen rounds. All men weighed over 200 pounds. One stood 6-7 and weighed in at 240 pounds. The fact that a middleweight could knock out a man the size of Lennox Lewis demonstrates his worth as a hitter. Fitzsimmons actually defeated top heavyweight contenders Peter Maher, Gus Ruhlin and Tom Sharkey all by knockout.

Nat Fleischer, founder of The Ring Magazine, regarded Fitzsimmons as the greatest pound for pound knockout puncher in boxing history. He also considered Fitz as the best-left hooker, and the best body puncher among heavyweights.

David Willoughby,in The Super Athletes, 1970, concurred saying that “Fitzsimmons had perhaps the hardest punch ever possessed by a boxer of his size.”

Joe Gans, lightweight champion 1902-1908, stated, Feb. 2, 1908 NY Times, “I consider Bob Fitzsimmons as one of the greatest exponents of straight hitting that the prize ring has ever known. Fitz was a wonderful fighter and all of his straight punches were very effective. Until age set in and his hands went back on him, there were few fighters able to withstand that famous shift of his. When Fitz delivered a blow he carried the whole weight of his body with it.”

McCallum wrote, (Encyclopedia p 8), “He moved with a shuffling gate. He stood flatfooted. His timing was perfect. He had a superb sense of distance. His punching therefore was deadly accurate.”

One was never safe until the final bell with Fitzsimmons. Durant noted, in , “He was ring-wise and crafty. He would sometimes lure an opponent into being careless by pretending to be hurt and then shoot over a knockout punch.”

Fleischer stated (Enigma Chpt. 13), “Fitzsimmons, who took the crown from Corbett, was not a slugger of the Sullivan type, nor did he approach Corbett in boxing skill. Yet he was the greatest strategist in the ring's history, a man of wonderful vitality, and the most accurate and deadliest hitter of the class. To reach Jim Corbett in the pit of the stomach with knockout force was a feat for a magician, and Fitz was a magician. Where others signally failed, Fitz succeeded through strategic feinting to induce Corbett to raise his guard and open the way for a left shift and a crashing blow to the solar plexus.”

I do not believe as many of the old-timers did that Fitzsimmons should be rated among the top heavyweights. He hit like a heavyweight but was still only a middleweight, in my view, this means he should be ranked with the 160-pounders. Charley Rose, in fact, did not rate him as a heavyweight. Rose rated him as a light-heavyweight, however he was light-heavyweight champion at the end of his career and was quite old.

It is my contention that Fitzsimmons should be rated among the all time greats as a middleweight and he, in fact, was a middleweight for most of his career. The idea that Fitzsimmons was anything more than a middleweight is a myth. Fitzsimmons began boxing professionally in 1883 and when he won the middleweight championship of the world in 1891 by knocking out the “Nonpareil” Jack Dempsey he weighed 150 ½ pounds. For his 1894 championship defense against Dan Creedon, for example, he weighed 155 ½ according to the Oct. 13, 1894 National Police Gazette. When he fought for the heavyweight title he was stripped down and privately weighed on the morning of Mar 17, 1897, the day of his fight with champion James J. Corbett, and “tipped the scale at 156 ½ pounds” according to Bob Davis a reporter and friend who was following Fitzsimmons (See Book of Boxing p 71). Further the San Francisco Chronicle reported the day before the second Jim Jeffries fight that “Fitzsimmons claims to weigh only 160 pounds and hardly looked that heavy.”

Gene Tunney wrote, (1940), that Fitz always considered himself a middleweight, “Fitz, incidentally, was funny about his weight, for, after defeating Corbett, while alone in a Turkish bath with Jim Coffroth, he kept repeating, 'eavyweight champion of the world--and I’m only a bleeding middleweight.”

While I have no doubt his vigor and durability would allow him to survive any middleweight’s punch, against the bigger and more modern heavyweights one has to question Nat Fleischer’s 1958 # 3 ranking at heavyweight for Fitzsimmons.

Consider that James Corbett, a small heavyweight who was not known for his power, bloodied Fitz’s lip with a sturdy left jab and floored the middleweight champion in the 6th round. If Corbett’s jab could tear up Fitz what would Joe Louis jab and right hand do? Or Muhammad Ali?

Fitz was down against Joe Choyinski, a light-heavyweight, in their draw fight. The June 30, 1894 Police Gazette reported, “Fitzsimmons finally tried for the wind and received a straight jab in the face. He came in again and was caught over the left eye so hard his that his head flew back. Keeping after Choyinski he let go for the wind. Choyinski shot his right across him full on the neck. Down he went like a falling chimney…the referee began to count but before he cried out “ten” Fitzsimmons was up. Fitzsimmons was up smiling like a sick man trying to make someone believe he feels better than he really does. He staggered about the ring and Choyinski went after him hard and furious. He could not however, get his right in for a knockout.”

Choynski was a great light-heavyweight hitter, but he was still only a light-heavyweight. Fitz was badly staggered, careening around the ring, and barely beat a ten count. He came back to put Choynski down as well, but what if it had been a great heavyweight finisher like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, or Mike Tyson instead of Joe Choysnki?

In describing Jim Jeffries title winning effort against Fitzsimmons the National Police Gazette wrote on July 1, 1899 “Jeffries was as firm and steady as the proverbial rock, fighting a carefully planned battle. He had demonstrated his ability to hit the champion and likewise demonstrated he had nothing to fear from the latter’s punches.”

Jeffries, a modern sized heavyweight, had little trouble in breaking down the smaller Fitzsimmons and knocking him out in their first fight. In the rematch, it has been contended that Fitzsimmons had loaded gloves (although this has never been proven) and he gave Big Jeff quite a beating, but a single blow from the heavyweight champion eventually knocked him out.

Bob Fitzsimmons has been described as a physical oddity, a middleweight puncher who destroyed heavyweights. He definitely had a heavyweight’s offensive prowess and could dish out punishment with the best of them, but his small frame, and fact that he was hurt by small heavyweights and light-heavyweights and was easily knocked out by a big heavyweight, means that he would be a vast underdog against any of the all time big men.

As a middleweight Fitzsimmons was nearly unbeatable. He was without challenge the hardest punching middleweight of all time. He was a highly accurate place puncher and a master at setting up knockout blows. Perhaps historian and writer Edgar Lee Masters said it best, "For courage, for power, for skill, for fighting will, there is nothing on record that holds a candle to Fitz." At 160 pounds Fitz’s incredible gift of amazing power combined with his cleverness, ring experience and proven success against much larger opponents demonstrates that he should be rated among the elite of the greatest middleweight of all time.

Nat Fleischer as mentioned rated Fitzsimmons # 3 at heavyweight. Charley Rose rated him # 1 at light-heavyweight. Historian Tracy Callis also rates him # 1 at middleweight. Fitz was a true middlweight for most of his career. Cox's Corner rates him # 2 all time in the middleweight division.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/12/05/boxing_fitz_273x400.jpg


Thank you! Excellent article! It reafirms in my mind my placing Ruby Robert at Middleweight and the number 2 Middleweight all-time at that :boxing:

PS. Green K given for are an excellent article and a great find :)

Poet

Thank you! Excellent article! It reafirms in my mind my placing Ruby Robert at Middleweight and the number 2 Middleweight all-time at that :boxing:

PS. Green K given for are an excellent article and a great find :)

Poet

No problem.............. :fing02:

Under the Marquios of Queensbury rules which were instated in 1867, who was the best p4p fighter of the 19th century? Was it Joe Gans? Bob Fitzsimmons? John L. Sullivan? George Dixon? Young Griffo? Who do you have, and Why?

Im going with Dixon. Was said to have fought up to 15 times a week at one point, was a bantam and featherweight champion and fought in at least 23 and up to as many as 33 championship fights. Was the role model for such fighters as Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Jack Blackburn and Joe Louis among others. Was the first black title holder ever.

This is very subjectice considering the very limited amount of film before the 20th century. Bob Fitzsimmons is a close second in my opinion, but I wouldn't argue a call for him.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/GeorgeDixon-111.jpg
George Dixon was one of the greatest fighters of all time. He was the first black fighter to win a world boxing championship. He held the bantamweight (1890) and featherweight championships (1891-1897, 1898-1900) winning his first championship at age 20. He fought in 23 world championship bouts (some records indicate 33), the most of any fighter until Joe Louis. Dixon held the Featherweight championship while never weighing beyond 118 pounds. He often fought and defeated men who were natural lightweights. His official record shows 158 bouts, but his record fails to record the actual number of fights he had as many were staged in dance halls and theatres around the country. Dixon’s manager who traveled with him claimed, before his death, that Dixon had over 800 fights sometimes fighting up to 15 times a week (See BD. Vol. 3 p. 7) One issue of the National Police Gazette indicates he had over 1,000. This is a record unparalleled in the history of sports.

Dixon is considered by many to be the greatest fighter of the 19th century. The newspapers of his day hailed him as "The greatest of them all." In the Jun 27, 1900 Police Gazette there is a photograph stating, “Characteristic fighting pose of the Greatest Pugilist the World ever saw.” Sam Austin, editor of the Gazette once called him “a fighter without a flaw.”

“Little Chocolate” was a superb boxer, who founded the “black school” of pugilism of which Joe Walcott, Jack Johnson, and Joe Gans belonged. Dixon and Walcott shared the same manager in Tom O’Rourke. Gans was a good friend of Dixon and studied under him, while Johnson served as a sparring partner for Walcott in his youth.

Dixon was a fast puncher with an excellent left jab, his best punch being a strong right cross to the chin. He also had a strong left hook. His favorite combination was a left jab to the face, followed by a right to the body and a jab back to the face. His famous fighting method included jabbing, feinting and rushing an opponent to the ropes where he would work the body. He was also known for his defensive ability to dodge, evade, and block his opponent’s blows.

Nat Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine, described him as “a marvel of cleverness, yet he could hit and slug with the best of them. He was fast, tricky, combative, canny, courageous, a master in every respect of the art of self-defense, a great ring general. His left hand was one of the best in the business. His double left to the body has never been equaled. His right was equally good” (B.D. p 6).

Tom O'Rourke described Dixon thusly, "Of all the fighters I have seen none can compare to Dixon in all around fighting ability. What a wonderful left hand! What a double corking punch to the head and body! What a fighting heart and fighting head! What a superb, all around mastery of the manly art he possessed!" (Oct. 1936 Ring Magazine.)

That fighters of this period were already fighting in combination is evident by reading newspaper accounts of Dixon’s battles with the clever Young Griffo. Their June 29, 1894 draw was heralded as “The best battle ever seen at Boston” and featured “very fast in-fighting.” The Police Gazette reported that another of their draws “was a continuous succession of clever feints, rapid exchanges, leads and uppercuts.” “Fast fighting” and “continuous rapid exchanges” sounds remarkably like “sustained combination punching.”

Herbert Goldman noted that, Dixon was an fine boxer who “fought on the balls of his feet.” He had excellent footwork and his agility and fleetness of foot was able to help him in avoiding blows. He could also “spring” into an opponent and had perfect balance.

McCallum wrote that Dixon was “long armed and skinny legged, swift of hand and foot, Little Chocolate boxed like a phantom, slugged like a diminutive longshoreman. He possessed the ideal fighting temperament. Distance meant nothing. He could pick up speed and last all the way” (pp 264-265).

Historian Tracy Callis stated, “Dixon was one of the all-time ring greats; He had fast hands and was quick on his feet like a cat; On offense, he hit with both hands but mostly utilized a long, straight left accompanied by a stiff right; On defense, he guarded himself well; His quickness and ducking ability made him a difficult target to strike.”

Callis also wrote, “Dixon won nearly 90 percent of the draws and losses on his record but due to various reasons he did not get credit for a win; e.g. racial attitude of the times judged him as loser instead of winner (in some bouts), he had to carry opponents in order to get fights, as well as specific rules for a given fight - i.e. the verdict would be draw if no knockout was scored.”

This fact is supported even by the white press of the period. The Sept. 30, 1893 Police Gazette reported “Nearly every time Dixon has been pitted against a champion, no matter whether foreign or native, the majority has named Dixon the loser, probably through prejudice, owing to his color, yet he has won.”

The newspaper record proves that Dixon was robbed of a good number of wins. For example in a bout with a young Abe Attell reported in the Sep. 14, 1901 Police Gazette, the bout was ruled a draw by the Referee. Reading the account however, it is clear that Dixon deserved the decision. Dixon floored Attell in the first round with a right to the chin. In the third round, “They got in a fierce mix, raining in face and body blows one after the other. Dixon seemed to have the better of the going.” Dixon staggered Abe in the eighth. Dixon also finished strongly but the Ref refused to declare Dixon the winner.

In a Featherweight championship match against Cal McCarthy on Mar. 31, 1891 Dixon had to knock out his opponent twice! In the third round little George knocked McCarthy out cold. But the referee, as in a London Prize Ring Rules, allowed McCarthy’s managers to drag him to his corner and revive him. This is strictly against the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury that governed this bout. Dixon’s manager protested but to no avail. Dixon eventually won by knockout in the 22nd round “with a flurry of offensive fighting.” McCarthy couldn’t continue and Dixon won by knockout.

Dixon, because of the color of his skin, often had to fight under unfair and even dangerous circumstances. There were no boxing commissions in those days and the gamblers controlled the sport.

Dixon fought and defeated a lot of great warriors in the ring. He went 70 rounds in his first fight with Cal McCarthy and never hit the canvas once, in fact, in nearly a decade as champion, he never hit the canvas in a regulation match until he lost the title to Terry McGovern. He defeated or drew with such ring legends as Nunc Wallace, Johnny Murphy, Young Griffo, Solly Smith, Pedlar Palmer, Dal Hawkins, future lightweight champion Franke Erne, Abe Attell, and Jem Driscoll.

Perhaps Fleischer described him best saying, “I doubt ever in the history of pugilism has there ever been a fighter of his weight who engaged in so many thrilling battles, most of them finish fights, and yet he was able to remain at the height of his power for so long” (B.D. p 78).

Dixon reigned as a champion for nearly 10 years. He finally lost the title for good to Terry McGovern who stopped him in the eighth round. It was the first time he had been off his feet in a regulation contest. Dixon fought McGovern in a no decision non-title rematch and never again contended for the title. He died penniless in 1909 at the age of 38.

George Dixon was rated as the # 1 all time Bantamweight by both Nat Fleischer and Charley Rose. Cox’s Corner considers him to be the # 2 Bantamweight of all time.

Fitzsimmons all day long...

Non-pareil Jack Dempsey probably deserves some attention. According to CBZ some regards him as the top p4p'er......

Anyways his record is outstanding. Here's the cbz link: http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/non-jack.htm

Thank you! Excellent article! It reafirms in my mind my placing Ruby Robert at Middleweight and the number 2 Middleweight all-time at that :boxing:

PS. Green K given for are an excellent article and a great find :)

Poet

These articles are not hard to find. You just type Cox's Corner - Fighter's name in google and presto, you got one of these articles (should it be written that is).

These articles are not hard to find. You just type Cox's Corner - Fighter's name in google and presto, you got one of these articles (should it be written that is).

It's an excellent find because he took the time to look for it, read it, then post it. Most posters don't put the kind of effort into their posts that SOUTHPAW16BF puts in with his articles and TheGreatA puts in with his videos.

Poet

It's an excellent find because he took the time to look for it, read it, then post it. Most posters don't put the kind of effort into their posts that SOUTHPAW16BF puts in with his articles and TheGreatA puts in with his videos.

Poet

All of Cox's Corner's stuff is good like this. Cox is a quality guy.

Bob Fitzsimmons: An absolute assasin at Middleweight, won the Heavyweight title not weighing much more than he did as a Middleweight, then wins the new Light-Heavyweight title when well past prime.

PS. He was destroying Jeffries in their first fight before breaking both hands.

Poet

i though you said English fighters were bums?

i though you said English fighters were bums?

English fighters from 120 years ago aren't the same as the effeminate girly-men the UK's been producing the last 60 years.....or in your case girly-BOY. Maybe one day you'll grow up to be Austin Powers.

Poet

English fighters from 120 years ago aren't the same as the effeminate girly-men the UK's been producing the last 60 years.....or in your case girly-BOY. Maybe one day you'll grow up to be Austin Powers.

Poet

"girl-boy" don't those two words define the two pictures in your profile pic? Poets taste in "women" is the same as his knowledge in boxing and his annual income....poor.

"girl-boy" don't those two words define the two pictures in your profile pic? Poets taste in "women" is the same as his knowledge in boxing and his annual income....poor.

Oh that's right, I forgot you like the company of men....probably because you've struck out with the skanky 5 quid gits on your street corner.

Poet

Oh that's right, I forgot you like the company of men....probably because you've struck out with the skanky 5 quid gits on your street corner.

Poet

5 quid would probably by your house in your cheapass country. and no actually, i like the company of women, hence finding the two pictures in your profile disturbing....are those the two "b!tches" in prison you traded in your cigarettes in for....or is that what you look like/or looked like in prison? are you permantly in a wheel chair?

5 quid would probably by your house in your cheapass country.

At least we can afford houses (at least ones with real roofs instead of straw). Kind of ironic since most Brits are squeezed into apartments the size of my walk in closet.....got to love Marxist economics: Make everyone equally poor then pretend you're prosperous. I'd hazard to guess I probably make more in the course of a decade than you'll make in your lifetime (after all, common laborers like youself don't make much and usually spend most of their lives on the dole :rofl:

and no actually, i like the company of women, hence finding the two pictures in your profile disturbing....

Translation: You're a hair dresser :gay:

are those the two "b!tches" in prison you traded in your cigarettes in for....

Ah come now! We know you really dream of being butt raped in the joint: It's the only sex you're ever going to get

or is that what you look like/or looked like in prison? are you permantly in a wheel chair?

Considering YOU'RE the one desperately trying to get a job as a sparring partner and can look forward to being punched stupid by real fighters, I'd watch the "wheel chair" cracks: You'll be in one drooling on yourself and soundling like John Merrick before you hit age 30 :rofl:

Poet

5 quid would probably by your house in your cheapass country. and no actually, i like the company of women, hence finding the two pictures in your profile disturbing....are those the two "b!tches" in prison you traded in your cigarettes in for....or is that what you look like/or looked like in prison? are you permantly in a wheel chair?

Back to boxing, it's pretty obvious to just about everyone you're just a pathetic internet troll with nothing intelligent to add to any conversation on the "Sweet Science"......now run home to Mommy for your nappy change Junior :bottle:

Poet

At least we can afford houses (at least ones with real roofs instead of straw). Kind of ironic since most Brits are squeezed into apartments the size of my walk in closet.....got to love Marxist economics: Make everyone equally poor then pretend you're prosperous. I'd hazard to guess I probably make more in the course of a decade than you'll make in your lifetime (after all, common laborers like youself don't make much and usually spend most of their lives on the dole :rofl:



Translation: You're a hair dresser :gay:



Ah come now! We know you really dream of being butt raped in the joint: It's the only sex you're ever going to get



Considering YOU'RE the one desperately trying to get a job as a sparring partner and can look forward to being punched stupid by real fighters, I'd watch the "wheel chair" cracks: You'll be in one drooling on yourself and soundling like John Merrick before you hit age 30 :rofl:

Poet


lol, you keep talking about how much money you have....yet all you do is go on this site 24/7...surely if you had so much money you'd have better things to do?

lol an American insulting the English economy?...dont you yanks have to pay for health service?..check out the average house price in the states, compare it to the uk's and then see what is the more prosperous country, which will be England-fact.

Sparring partner? nonono...obviously you have trouble reading as well as seeing(must be the case to drool over those b!tches in your profile pic)..i am a professional boxer, not no part time sparring partner. and we will see if im in a wheelchair shall we? because like i keep on saying, your ambition is to be talented and ballsy enough to step in between those ropes, i find it hypocritical that you are on a boxing site yet you always hate on people who do the sport?...why is that?

I really would like to see how much sh!t youd talk face to face....

lol an American insulting the English economy?...dont you yanks have to pay for health service?..

You get what you pay for.....not like you losers wanting a free ride :haha:

check out the average house price in the states, compare it to the uk's and then see what is the more prosperous country, which will be England-fact.

Prosperous? :rofl: You dudes ain't been prosperous since WWII.....The US could BUY the UK, if only there was anything their worth buying.

Sparring partner? nonono...obviously you have trouble reading as well as seeing(must be the case to drool over those b!tches in your profile pic)..i am a professional boxer, not no part time sparring partner. and we will see if im in a wheelchair shall we?

Yes, a sparring partner, tomato can, an "opponent" ie. someone paid to lose to real fighters. You see, you'll never be successful as a fighter because you lack the intelligence to be successful at anything.

because like i keep on saying, your ambition is to be talented and ballsy enough to step in between those ropes,

No, my ambition is to live comfortably while pursuing whatever intellectual inquiry strikes my fancy at a given moment.

i find it hypocritical that you are on a boxing site yet you always hate on people who do the sport?...why is that?

Actually, the only people I "hate on" are idiots such as yourself: Because I find stupidity and anti-intellectualism offensive.

I really would like to see how much sh!t youd talk face to face....

I'd say it to your face and you'd take it like the little ***** that you are.....and if, by chance, you pissed me off to much, well, you might want to remember that there are certain things Americans are allowed to have that Pommies are not :)

Poet

You get what you pay for.....not like you losers wanting a free ride :haha:



Prosperous? :rofl: You dudes ain't been prosperous since WWII.....The US could BUY the UK, if only there was anything their worth buying.



Yes, a sparring partner, tomato can, an "opponent" ie. someone paid to lose to real fighters. You see, you'll never be successful as a fighter because you lack the intelligence to be successful at anything.



No, my ambition is to live comfortably while pursuing whatever intellectual inquiry strikes my fancy at a given moment.



Actually, the only people I "hate on" are idiots such as yourself: Because I find stupidity and anti-intellectualism offensive.



I'd say it to your face and you'd take it like the little ***** that you are.....and if, by chance, you pissed me off to much, well, you might want to remember that there are certain things Americans are allowed to have that Pommies are not :)

Poet


lol, ive only lost 1 fight in the amateurs. currently 1-0 as a pro, i have a world class trainer, and you call me a tomatoe can?...easy to say sitting on an armchair aint it *****?

Actually, England have both private and free medical care, see we cater for thos epoverty striken and more fortunate...your worthless countries just look after the rich, so your unemployed broke ass is **** outta luck i guess, hope you full down the stairs or some **** (thats unless it hasnt happened yet)

You live in the past, idc about what countries were like back in the day, ****...if that was the case America would have 0 credibility.

All America is, is a place full of dumb, racist rednecks, who are obese and think like you-thankfully i dont live there, because id be having GBH charges left and right.

"dudes" muthfuka do i look like the beachboys to you? take your cali ass somewhere else cunt

You really are a ******, i guarntee you wouldnt have the balls to say that **** to my face, and if you did...id put you on your ass- like you are half the time sitting on your armchair dreaming of becoming a fighter..

and whats that? a gun? you arn't man enough to fight with your fists? thats the trouble with society, too much gun play...but hey...you are the type of guy who doesnt like anything up close and personal, so a gun would be right up your street *****.

Fuk this, im done talking to this redneck retard they call poet....its like Diego Maradonna talking to Emile Heskey about football(me Maradonna, poet Heskey). You are old, i am young. Your life is pract. over, mine is pract. beginning. I can get a hardon without Viagra, you can't. I am in this sport, you arn't. I live in a more civilised country, you don't. I have got financial backing, you have none what so ever. Now i kno why you are always chatting **** to me poet, jealousy is a mutfuka aint it.

All of Cox's Corner's stuff is good like this. Cox is a quality guy.

I've e-mailed him a couple of times and he's answered my questions. Gotta appreciate when someone takes the time to answer a total stranger.

lol, ive only lost 1 fight in the amateurs. currently 1-0 as a pro, i have a world class trainer, and you call me a tomatoe can?...easy to say sitting on an armchair aint it *****?

Actually, England have both private and free medical care, see we cater for thos epoverty striken and more fortunate...your worthless countries just look after the rich, so your unemployed broke ass is **** outta luck i guess, hope you full down the stairs or some **** (thats unless it hasnt happened yet)

You live in the past, idc about what countries were like back in the day, ****...if that was the case America would have 0 credibility.

All America is, is a place full of dumb, racist rednecks, who are obese and think like you-thankfully i dont live there, because id be having GBH charges left and right.

"dudes" muthfuka do i look like the beachboys to you? take your cali ass somewhere else cunt

You really are a ******, i guarntee you wouldnt have the balls to say that **** to my face, and if you did...id put you on your ass- like you are half the time sitting on your armchair dreaming of becoming a fighter..

Got to love these juvenile Pommies and their inferiority complex.....you Granddads are hanging their heads in shame at your generation :bottle:

and whats that? a gun? you arn't man enough to fight with your fists? thats the trouble with society, too much gun play...but hey...you are the type of guy who doesnt like anything up close and personal, so a gun would be right up your street *****.

:haha: Gun? I never said anything about a gun.....You just assumed :439:

PS. You're starting to bore me Junior.....trolls like you are a dime a dozen and if you can't keep me entertained......

Poet

Fuk this, im done talking to this redneck retard they call poet....Now i kno why you are always chatting **** to me poet

:haha: From the troglodyte who slithered into the Boxing History section looking to troll me :rofl:

PS. BTW, what names did you used to post under (I can't be arsed to research it)......cuz you try and troll me every six months or so under different IDs: You can change your names but the your rap stays the same every time :lame:

PPS. I bet this is Rafeal_Benitez aka JulioCesa(r)Chavez :rofl:

Poet

no actually, if you check my profile i have been a member here for a long time. Again you make a retard comment.

i though you said English fighters were bums?

So this is the first thing you say in here.....do you have a point or something related to the thread ....or did you just spend the last few days searching through all of poets posts in order to find some point where he contradicts himself only to fail...then turn to insulting the only 2 respectable looking pictures of females on this entire forum....not that there incredibly hot but at least they havnt lost any self respect doing some booty shaking pose.

So any ways who do you think was the greatest of the 19th century?

no actually, if you check my profile i have been a member here for a long time. Again you make a retard comment.

I'm referring to the 4 or 5 other names (read: alts) that you troll under Junior.

Poet

Glad you guys have settled your differences and made up :)

Bob Fitzsimmons: An absolute assasin at Middleweight, won the Heavyweight title not weighing much more than he did as a Middleweight, then wins the new Light-Heavyweight title when well past prime.

PS. He was destroying Jeffries in their first fight before breaking both hands.

Poet

That is something that many people overlook. Jeffries took a beating in that fight.

Under the Marquios of Queensbury rules which were instated in 1867, who was the best p4p fighter of the 19th century? Was it Joe Gans? Bob Fitzsimmons? John L. Sullivan? George Dixon? Young Griffo? Who do you have, and Why?
This is almost an unwinnable question,..... therefore a great post,.... maybe Fitz,.... maybe Dixon,.... but probably Sullivan..... he had ONLY FOUR Bareknuckle bouts...... The Corbett win was against an old and inactive champion. But a PRIME John L. would have destroyed Corbett. The other great name... "Non Pariel" Dempsey, I'm not sure about his Glove experience.......... Peter Jackson maybe ???....... Griffo was great, but was'nt quite good enough for Dixon..................... Fitz won two weight divisions in that century..... I'll go with Ruby Bob.

Well, really it's Fitzs. a good argument could be made for Dempsey, but Fitzs achieved a bit more than Jack under queensberry. I think Jack got three Queensberry titles, possibly fought more rounds, but Bob stole the HW title from the HWs....woof. LPRR included then I'd say either Dempsey, Mace, or Sayer.

Bowen/Burke was the most impressive thing to come from that era imo, and feel that, that one showing of refusal to quit no matter what qualifies as evidence for either men to be considered p4p most wilful

PPS. I bet this is Rafeal_Benitez aka JulioCesa(r)Chavez :rofl:

Poet

The photoshop JCC thread was a classic!
http://i39.tinypic.com/24mucs4.jpg

Fitz with Dempsey a close second.