10 Greatest Fighters Of The 19th Century

[Seamus]

For what it's worth, after much deliberation, this is my list of who I think were the 10 greatest fighters of the 19th century. Those who's careers lasted into the 20th century were ranked exclusively by what they accomplished in the 19th century. Perhaps you can convince me I'm wrong, or maybe I'll convince you.

1.Tommy Ryan
2.Bob Fitzsimmons
3.Jimmy Barry
4.Terry McGovern
5.Kid McCoy
6.George Dixon
7.Jack McAuliffe
8.James J Jeffries
9.Tom Sharkey
10.Joe Gans

Missing the final cut of 10.
11.Joe Walcott
12.John L Sullivan
13.Young Griffo
14.Kid Lavigne
15.Frank Erne
16.Peter Jackson
17.Jack Dempsey

[Dempsey1238]

To "Morden" imo.

Your forgetting Herny Pearce, Tom Cribb, John Gully, and other greats, before John L Sullivan.

John Jackson should be there also imo.

[surf-bat]

For what it's worth, after much deliberation, this is my list of who I think were the 10 greatest fighters of the 19th century. Those who's careers lasted into the 20th century were ranked exclusively by what they accomplished in the 19th century. Perhaps you can convince me I'm wrong, or maybe I'll convince you.

1.Tommy Ryan
2.Bob Fitzsimmons
3.Jimmy Barry
4.Terry McGovern
5.Kid McCoy
6.George Dixon
7.Jack McAuliffe
8.James J Jeffries
9.Tom Sharkey
10.Joe Gans

Missing the final cut of 10.
11.Joe Walcott
12.John L Sullivan
13.Young Griffo
14.Kid Lavigne
15.Frank Erne
16.Peter Jackson
17.Jack Dempsey

No Order-

Dempsey
Dixon
Walcott
Griffo
Fitzsimmons
Barry
McCoy
Ryan
Jeffries
Sullivan

[dr_devious]

Why did you put Tommy Ryan over Bob Fitzsimmon? Your list seems OK. Not sure how the earlier guys such as Tom Cribb and Jem Belcher would have fared against Fitzsimmons and Jeffries, but I think they were definitely better than the fighters in the John L Sullivan era

[bigzab]

To "Morden" imo.

Your forgetting Herny Pearce, Tom Cribb, John Gully, and other greats, before John L Sullivan.

John Jackson should be there also imo.

Is Morden a subway station at the end of the Northern line in London? Why you wanna go there?

[Seamus]

Thanks for your response Dr Devious, I really thought this thread would take off.

In regards to why I picked Tommy Ryan over Bob Fitzsimmons, it was a very difficult choice, but in the end, I liked Ryan's 19th century record of 58-2-7 (45 KO's) 8 NC's and 11-1-1 (8 KO's) in title fights, over Fitzsimmons record of 43-4-5 (36 KO's) 4 NC's 5-2 (5 KO's) in title fights. Of Ryan's 2 losses, one was a 3 rd decision and the other by a 15th round KO by Hall of Famer Kid McCoy. Two of Fitzsimmons losses were by early KO, to fighters well below McCoy in talent. Actually however, had the two met, I'd pick Fitzsimmons to win, but I have to rate Ryan a little higher on accomplishment.

Also, I left out alot of famous 19th century fighters because their records were not available.

[silkov]

Sullivan and Jackson should be there I think.... doesn't make sense having Tom Sharkey in there and not Sullivan...

[Seamus]

I think Sharkey was every bit the puncher Sullivan was while weighing considerably less, and I don't see John L lasting 20 and 25 rds with Jeffries the way Sharkey did.

[pundit]

I think Sharkey was every bit the puncher Sullivan was while weighing considerably less, and I don't see John L lasting 20 and 25 rds with Jeffries the way Sharkey did.

You will have your reasons to omit him, but I miss Jim "Gentleman" Corbett.

[Seamus]

Corbett fought some pretty solid opponents, but in the end, I left him off because he had just 11 wins in the 19th-century.

[silkov]

I think Sharkey was every bit the puncher Sullivan was while weighing considerably less, and I don't see John L lasting 20 and 25 rds with Jeffries the way Sharkey did.

What do you base that on?... missing out Corbett is also a mistake, he almost beat Jeffries when he was 34 and past his peak...

[dr_devious]

Thanks for your response Dr Devious, I really thought this thread would take off.

In regards to why I picked Tommy Ryan over Bob Fitzsimmons, it was a very difficult choice, but in the end, I liked Ryan's 19th century record of 58-2-7 (45 KO's) 8 NC's and 11-1-1 (8 KO's) in title fights, over Fitzsimmons record of 43-4-5 (36 KO's) 4 NC's 5-2 (5 KO's) in title fights. Of Ryan's 2 losses, one was a 3 rd decision and the other by a 15th round KO by Hall of Famer Kid McCoy. Two of Fitzsimmons losses were by early KO, to fighters well below McCoy in talent. Actually however, had the two met, I'd pick Fitzsimmons to win, but I have to rate Ryan a little higher on accomplishment.

Also, I left out alot of famous 19th century fighters because their records were not available.

Youre Welcome. I would pick Fitz over Ryan because although both were middleweights, Fitz often fought bigger guys and won.
I'm just reading "John L Sullivan and his America" and to be honest I'm not impressed with the 1880s era of boxing, the best fighters Sullivan fought in that era were invariably smaller than him e.g. Charlie Mitchell, most of the other well known fighters were hardly skilled boxers e.g. Paddy Ryan was more of a wrestler, and a lot of the other well known fighters of the era were little more than strong arm thugs and middle aged English fighters ekeing a living in America. The era was crap basically, I think the earlier English guys e.g. Tom Cribb, Jem Belcher were much better than Sullivan's contempories.

[Seamus]

Silkov

The bout you're referring to occured in 1900, so it has no bearing on my list. I have Joe Gans at number 10, and he went 58-3-7 in the 19th century. That's why Corbett isn't listed.

Sullivan had 12 1st rd KO's, Sharkey had 11, and they both had 8 2nd rd KO's. There KO percentages are pretty comparble. Plus Sullivan got floored by 150 lb Charley Mitchell, and KO'd by a 34lbs lighter Corbett.

[Tantum]

The year 1900 is actually part of the 19th century.

Decades, Centuries, Millenia, all begin in a 1, and end in a 0.

1801-1900 = 19th century

1991-2000 = 90's.

There was no 0 year, and this carries over.

1-100, 101-200, 201-300, 301-400, 401-500, etc...

[pundit]

Corbett fought some pretty solid opponents, but in the end, I left him off because he had just 11 wins in the 19th-century.

Well, he has 11 wins recorded on boxrec, but like all 19th century fighters he had lots of unrecorded and exhibition matches. See for example Corbett's record here
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/corbett.htm

Among Corbett's victims were greats like John L Sullivan (in their epic world title match of 1892), Jake Kilrain, and Joe Choinsky; and he had hard-fought draws with other greats like Peter Jackson (another epic battle) and Tom Sharkey.

Besides he's credited with revolutionizing boxing techinque, systematically employing counter-punching, taking advantage of footspeed, and developing defensive skils.

[Seamus]

Pundit

I'm not saying Corbett wasen't an excellent fighter. It's just that those bouts you spoke of were still exhibitions, where no one get's knocked out, plus the fact that Corbett was the heavyweight champion means he get's acclaim he would never have received if he were a light weight. Unfortunately from the 19th century to the Box Rec forum in 2006, alot of people think the heavyweight division is what boxing is all about, often to the exclusion of the other weight divisions.

So where would you rank Corbett among 19th century fighters ?

[pundit]

Pundit

I'm not saying Corbett wasen't an excellent fighter. It's just that those bouts you spoke of were still exhibitions, where no one get's knocked out, plus the fact that Corbett was the heavyweight champion means he get's acclaim he would never have received if he were a light weight. Unfortunately from the 19th century to the Box Rec forum in 2006, alot of people think the heavyweight division is what boxing is all about, often to the exclusion of the other weight divisions.

So where would you rank Corbett among 19th century fighters ?

I'd have him around #10, I suppose.
But this is a tricky one - at the end of the day we know so little about 19th century fighters. A few newspaper reports, most of them pretty biased, and that's pretty much all.

[Seamus]

Pundit

I agree about our lack of knowledge to a certain extent, but when it comes down to it we still do know who knocked out who. 50 times in the 19th century, Kid McCoy didn't leave it to the news accounts to decide who won, so we definitely have some criteria to go by.

Maybe when I have more time, I'll finish out my top 20 or top 30.

[Seamus]

Almost forgot to mention, if there was one fighter I really wanted to rate higher, it would be Young Griffo. Griffo was so good defensively, that according to accounts, he made Hall of Famers George Dixon, Jack McAuliffe and Kid Lavigne look silly trying to land a punch. Problem is, Griffo didn't have much in the offensive department, and so I had to rate him below Dixon and McAuliffe.

[surf-bat]

Almost forgot to mention, if there was one fighter I really wanted to rate higher, it would be Young Griffo. Griffo was so good defensively, that according to accounts, he made Hall of Famers George Dixon, Jack McAuliffe and Kid Lavigne look silly trying to land a punch. Problem is, Griffo didn't have much in the offensive department, and so I had to rate him below Dixon and McAuliffe.

I dunno about that. He beat the hell out of Ike Weir, who was one of the better(maybe even great) fighters of the era. He beat a lot of good contenders, too. How could you rate McAuliffe ahead of him? He beat Jack and beat the better fighters. Dixon I could understand, but not McAuliffe.

I also wonder what happened in his second bout with Gans. Did Griffo get the better of it?

[barry]

>>>But this is a tricky one - at the end of the day we know so little about 19th century fighters. A few newspaper reports, most of them pretty biased, and that's pretty much all.<<<

That's just simply incorrect! There is a ton of info out there for fighters of that era for someone interested in taking the time to do the research...especially on the top fighters. For every biased account there are five to ten other accounts to counter it. The info is out there, and plenty of it, but it's something that takes a lot of time to do, which many just are not willing to do.

[surf-bat]

Pundit

I'm not saying Corbett wasen't an excellent fighter. It's just that those bouts you spoke of were still exhibitions, where no one get's knocked out, plus the fact that Corbett was the heavyweight champion means he get's acclaim he would never have received if he were a light weight. Unfortunately from the 19th century to the Box Rec forum in 2006, alot of people think the heavyweight division is what boxing is all about, often to the exclusion of the other weight divisions.

So where would you rank Corbett among 19th century fighters ?

I'd have him around #10, I suppose.
But this is a tricky one - at the end of the day we know so little about 19th century fighters. A few newspaper reports, most of them pretty biased, and that's pretty much all.

I can send you articles from NY and LA. That way you can get a feel for the opinions on both coasts. Just say the word.

[pundit]

Pundit

I'm not saying Corbett wasen't an excellent fighter. It's just that those bouts you spoke of were still exhibitions, where no one get's knocked out, plus the fact that Corbett was the heavyweight champion means he get's acclaim he would never have received if he were a light weight. Unfortunately from the 19th century to the Box Rec forum in 2006, alot of people think the heavyweight division is what boxing is all about, often to the exclusion of the other weight divisions.

So where would you rank Corbett among 19th century fighters ?

I'd have him around #10, I suppose.
But this is a tricky one - at the end of the day we know so little about 19th century fighters. A few newspaper reports, most of them pretty biased, and that's pretty much all.

I can send you articles from NY and LA. That way you can get a feel for the opinions on both coasts. Just say the word.

With pleasure.

[Seamus]

Nero

I'd love to hear any account of the two drawn bouts between Griffo and Gans. By the time they met in 1900, Griffo was past his best and more than likely an alcoholic, not too surprisingly he was no match for Gans by then.

Jack McAuliffe got the decision against Griffo in 1894, but from what I've read it was an undeserved decision. Interestingly, both men were undefeated at the time.

[pundit]

>>>But this is a tricky one - at the end of the day we know so little about 19th century fighters. A few newspaper reports, most of them pretty biased, and that's pretty much all.<<<

That's just simply incorrect! There is a ton of info out there for fighters of that era for someone interested in taking the time to do the research...especially on the top fighters. For every biased account there are five to ten other accounts to counter it. The info is out there, and plenty of it, but it's something that takes a lot of time to do, which many just are not willing to do.

OK, then let's say: it's too difficult for me. I find it difficult enough to gather enough information about 20th century fighters.