HomicideHenry wrote:The decision was "unaminous" for McTigue, saying he won 18 of 20, but in all actuality it was Siki who won 18 of 20 rounds. Even the Irish reporters said it was a travesty that Siki lost; but was Siki's own stupid mistake of fighting an Irishman on Saint Patrick's Day during an Irish civil war in the most famous city in all of Ireland.
What remains of the fight film is a heavily edited version of what took place, showing the "good parts" of McTigue getting his shots in, when in fact it was McTigue alot of the time running away and Siki piling on the points.
RING magazine posted the story not too long ago, but I have heard of that for years. You never heard of that?
No, I didn't see the Ring Magazine article, and am skeptical of it's accurracy.
I checked through a few of my books and found nothing that supports the idea that Siki was ripped off against McTigue.
Harry Carpenter's
Boxing: An Illustrated History doesn't say anything about the decision being bad.
Gilbert Odd's
Encyclopedia of Boxing does point out that the fight was in Dublin on St Patrick's Day (which may be a hint that McTigue may have gotten the benefit of the doubt), but doesn't say that it was a bad decision.
Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre's
Illustrated History of Boxing says that McTigue
"battered" Siki in winning the title.
If you look up Battling Siki on Cyberboxingzone.com you can see where it specifically says that "Observers do state that
McTigue deserved to win and was not the recipient of a hometown decision".