Top 12 boxers of the 1910's Decade

[McGoorty]

Wilde was a good little slugger, but highly highly doubt he was the best fighter of the decade..

Wilde was not really a slugger, he is what we usually call a boxer puncher

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Wilde was not really a slugger, he is what we usually call a boxer puncher

Ok, well if you want to get super technical and nitpick my words... The dude has like a 100+ ko's

A boxer puncher can be described as a slugger, it's not mutually exclusive..



Regardless,, I highly doubt he was fighter of the decade..

[billeau2]

I may agree with you on Wilde but who are these guys he fought ?.... would love to hear from a real expert in British boxing history here on this one... I do not hold the opinion that just because nearly every fight he has was against non Americans that he was fighting inferior opposition, many of these guys I suspect are every bit as good as the Americans but I am still guessing. Glad to see a Wilde supporter. Jack Dempsey ahead of Jeanette over the entire decade ? you are putting a single fight ahead of many many great fights Jeanette was involved in, I think Joe is vastly underrated these days and I think also that he is a huge chance of beating Dempsey. I rate Jeanette higher than Harry Wills.

These lists require so much anecdotal information. jeanette was very good, its interesting your statement about jeanette compared to Wills because Wills was not rated very high by many. I think his alleged potential against Dempsey was exxagerated. It should be remembered that Wills was a late starter and that the Will's mystique took on a life of its own.

[Lemus]

Interesting list, McGoorty.

I would be lying if I told you my knowledge on this particular era exceeds what can be deemed as average, but I want to address—and further discuss—some of the statements in your initial post nevertheless.

Others I considered were Battling Levinsky, Jeff Smith, Lew tendler (better after 1919), Johnny Kilbane. Others missed out because they were better pre decade like Abe Attell or because I already had too many in one division... like Jeff Smith who was great but not as good as Darcy who is the best middleweight of the decade according to most of the contemporaries but some said the thought Gibbons was best..

What about Jack Dillon?

I also considered Frank Klaus and Carpentier but I think Carpentier hit peak after 1919 and Klaus was a bit too inactive for my liking but a great fighter nonetheless.

Too inactive?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he have around one-hundred fights?

So who is the greatest fighter of this particular decade?

As I mentioned earlier, I am not knowledgeable enough to have a strong opinion, but I'd probably side with Langford if pressed at gunpoint.

so too is Les Darcy, if he had not died age 21 in 1917 he seriously could have become anything between seriously abnormally great to the greatest of all time.

Even if it is possible that Darcy had cemented his status as one of the greatest of all-time, we have to remind ourselves that it's far from certain. There have been too many examples throughout history to say otherwise.

Darcy had every attribute and skill needed from impregnable chin and awesome strength to great speed in hand and foot and a cool temperament but unfortunately he died but despite that he is undeniably deserving of his spot....

This description makes it sound like he was a neolithic version of Ray Robinson.

In the end, it's all about how proven you feel a fighter is. So if you are under the impression that Darcy did enough during his brief career to warrant a spot, that's perfectly fine.

In the end the best of the decade is in my opinion either McFarland or Langford as Leonard is yet to peak in this decade.

Would it be preposterous to argue that Leonard hit his prime during the latter part of this decade?

[Lemus]

Well there you go then, I take great notice of what the big names say about fighters and Tunney also said he knew for a fact that Darcy was one of the greatest fighters ever so he knew what he was on about.

Was it not Tunney who also said that Dempsey would've KO'd Charles, Marciano and Walcott in the same evening?

Fighters aren't exactly known to be impartial about their own era, to put it mildly.

[soul_survivor]

This becomes an exercise in myth, to list such fighters and then debate over them. Most of you guys have the guys who are regarded as the stand out names of the decade but you can't really argue too much in depth as there is little to no footage of these guys.

But in terms of reputation, the guys being named here would certainly be the top names. Dempsey at the tail end of the decade was probably the most entertaining and feared of the lot.

[Bundana]

Was it not Tunney who also said that Dempsey would've KO'd Charles, Marciano and Walcott in the same evening?

Fighters aren't exactly known to be impartial about their own era, to put it mildly.

And you can add Harry (kid) Matthews to that trio! Tunney actually said (1952) that Dempsey would flatten all 4 in one night, in less than (combined) 10 rounds, and added: He might have demolished each of the four in less than one round.

Just another example of a delusional oldtimer talking nonsense.

[joeandthebums]

This becomes an exercise in myth, to list such fighters and then debate over them. Most of you guys have the guys who are regarded as the stand out names of the decade but you can't really argue too much in depth as there is little to no footage of these guys.

Footage would be fantastic, but I doubt that very few people have spent the time to really get to know these fighters beyond the usual skim.

If there were people who had done that, or were willingly to - then I think a very in-depth discussion could take place.

* I'm not criticizing anybody, just making the case for the ability to hold such arguments if there were the participants available.

[soul_survivor]

Footage would be fantastic, but I doubt that very few people have spent the time to really get to know these fighters beyond the usual skim.

If there were people who had done that, or were willingly to - then I think a very in-depth discussion could take place.

* I'm not criticizing anybody, just making the case for the ability to hold such arguments if there were the participants available.

Well, personally, I've read more than my fair share about a lot if not all the guys being mentioned here but reading about paper decisions, embellishments and nostalgia still doesn't change the fact that you can not truly judge a fighter and claim "so and so was so much more entertaining/better/fluid/smarter/well schooled/well trained etc than the other guy" without actual video footage.

That's all I'm saying, no doubt these guys were the most memorable and beloved fighters of their time but it is very difficult to distinguish between them or label fighter "A" an exceptional technical fighter when in reality, that is impossible to do.

[McGoorty]

Was it not Tunney who also said that Dempsey would've KO'd Charles, Marciano and Walcott in the same evening?

Fighters aren't exactly known to be impartial about their own era, to put it mildly.

Yes you are right in a lot of ways there but still it was Darcy he remembered and obviously the LES had an impact on Tunney. To say Dempsey could KO Marciano, Gene forgets that he had to be awake to do that and if the Rock lands his power Jack wasn't gonna be awake to fight the other three.