BoxRec

I've always thought Ritchie was a very underrated champion. I hadn't seen him fight until recently, but based just on his record and accomplishments, he looked to me like he was worthy of a spot in the all time top 20 at 135.

He was known as a very skilled boxer, but also a tough and scrappy fighter who was willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone if he had to. He was not considered a knockout puncher by his peers, but he appears to have surprised many opponents with his deceptive power. He was only stopped twice in his career, once when he was overmatched in his pro debut, and then very late in his career vs. a peak Benny Leonard. He won his title by toppling long-reigning HOFer Ad Wolgast. Prior to getting a shot at Wolgast, he followed the champ around everywhere, sitting at ringside for his fights, publicly calling him out, taunting him, openly calling him a "bum," etc. Wolgast eventually agreed to meet Ritchie in a non-title fight, and although the fight came off roughly even, Wolgast suffered the indignity of being knocked down. Wolgast gave him a title shot soon after that, and this was reportedly a bruising battle. Wolgast caused swellings to appear around Ritchie's eyes, but Ritchie stood his ground and eventually his superior skill came through. He hurt Wolgast badly in the 16th round, and Wolgast fouled out of the fight to avoid further punishment.

Ritchie fought no soft touches as champion. In his very first defense, he took on the "uncrowned champion" Mexican Joe Rivers, who many people felt had been robbed of winning the title in his "double knockdown" fight with Wolgast. This fight is shown below here, and it is a very entertaining fight (about as good as any I've seen at lightweight), and a great performance by Ritchie. This shows what a skilled technician Ritchie is, a good counterpuncher and combination puncher with one helluva stiff jab; plus a tough and aggressive battler as well.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfBmJZ40 ... ted&fmt=18
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8gwtfcR ... ted&fmt=18
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJj8eUKE ... ted&fmt=18
(Ritchie is the taller-looking and more upright fighter, who is usually pressing the fight.)

Ritchie surprised many people by knocking out Rivers (and mainly as a result of body shots). Like against Wolgast, he had made a renowned tough fighter basically say "No mas." Also like Wolgast, Rivers was never the same after being beaten up by Ritchie.

After this, Ritchie successfully defended his title against tough perennial contender Harlem Tommy Muprhy, winning another reportedly hard-fought battle on points. Then he made the mistake of going to England to defend against the long-avoided contender Freddie Welsh, another HOFer. Welsh had previously won a very close decision over Ritchie when Ritchie took the fight on very short notice (Ritchie stepped in as a late sub for champion Wolgast, who had to pull out because of appendicitis). The trip to England made Ritchie a wealthy man, but cost him his title. The fight was a stinker, with Welsh fighting in his customary "boring" defensive style and Ritchie pressing the fight and scoring punches whenever/however he could. Ritchie scored the only knockdown of the fight, and at the end of 20 rounds it appeared to many people that his aggression and harder punching should've retained him his title. Instead, the referee, the sole judge, scored the first 19 rounds even (including the round in which Ritchie floored Welsh) and gave the last round to Welsh, thus making Welsh the winner by a score of 1-0-19. Honestly, that is the most bizarre scorecard I have ever heard of in my life.

Unfortunately, Ritchie was basically shut out of challenging for the LW title again after that, even though he is generally credited with beating Welsh in a no-decision rematch. He did move up in weight and fight welter champ Ted "Kid" Lewis in a no-decision fight that was considered in some quarters as being for the welter title, but he lost the newspaper decision. Late in his career, however, when he was past his prime, he fought Benny Leonard in a no-decision and is credited by some as having gotten the better of it. They fought a rematch soon afterward, however, and this time Leonard pounded him into an 8th round stoppage. Even in defeat, however, Ritchie impressed observers with his gutty display and his stubborn refusal to quit or go down.


What are your thoughts on Ritchie, and the footage above?

Thank you for this film. I shall check it out when I am on the home PC..
faster connection.

Really appreciate it.

Good stuff. I like the old rules where thre fighters went right at it as soon as the guy who got knocked down gets up. F the standing 8 count and wipping off the gloves

Ritchie was one of the best lightweight champions.

There is a very good bio on Freddie Welsh called "Occupation: Prizefighter - The Freddie Welsh Story", written by Andre Gillamore (2006), that gives a lot of valuable info on Ritchie and his fights with Welsh.
A highly recommended read.

-KOKid- wrote:There is a very good bio on Freddie Welsh called "Occupation: Prizefighter - The Freddie Welsh Story", written by Andre Gillamore (2006), that gives a lot of valuable info on Ritchie and his fights with Welsh.
A highly recommended read.

Does he admit that Ritchie was robbed of his title in his London defense against Welsh?

The book goes into the Ritchie fight in great detail.
It points out how Ritchie at first had no problems with the decision, in fact, Ritchie even said to an American journalist from the New York Times that "... Welsh earned the decision. I know I disappointed my friends, but I could not get going right...".
Ritchie's actual statement is reprinted.

The book also notes that, according to the Daily Telegraph's New York reporter, none of the American journalist at ringside had Ritchie winning.
The consensus scoring amongst ringside reporters was ten rounds for Welsh, five for Ritchie and five even.

It wasn't until the day after that Ritche changed his opinion of the outcome, then claiming he deserved a draw.
By the time he returned to the US he and his manager were claiming he was robbed.
There was much interest in the fight, Ritchie had been a popular champion and the ban on fight films seems to have greatly helped his cause in claiming he was robbed.
In reality though, virtually eyeryone who actually saw the fight thought the decision was a fair one.

-KOKid- wrote:The book goes into the Ritchie fight in great detail.
It points out how Ritchie at first had no problems with the decision, in fact, Ritchie even said to an American journalist from the New York Times that "... Welsh earned the decision. I know I disappointed my friends, but I could not get going right...".
Ritchie's actual statement is reprinted.

The book also notes that, according to the Daily Telegraph's New York reporter, none of the American journalist at ringside had Ritchie winning.
The consensus scoring amongst ringside reporters was ten rounds for Welsh, five for Ritchie and five even.

It wasn't until the day after that Ritche changed his opinion of the outcome, then claiming he deserved a draw.
By the time he returned to the US he and his manager were claiming he was robbed.
There was much interest in the fight, Ritchie had been a popular champion and the ban on fight films seems to have greatly helped his cause in claiming he was robbed.
In reality though, virtually eyeryone who actually saw the fight thought the decision was a fair one.

GARBAGE.

What does Welsh say about his embarrassing one sided loss to Packey McFarland in England?

I'm sure he says he won that one too.

PS: There is a film of that. Welsh ran for his life, grabbed and held on and disgraced himself.

He didn't belong in the same ring with McFarland.

granberry wrote:

-KOKid- wrote:The book goes into the Ritchie fight in great detail.
It points out how Ritchie at first had no problems with the decision, in fact, Ritchie even said to an American journalist from the New York Times that "... Welsh earned the decision. I know I disappointed my friends, but I could not get going right...".
Ritchie's actual statement is reprinted.

The book also notes that, according to the Daily Telegraph's New York reporter, none of the American journalist at ringside had Ritchie winning.
The consensus scoring amongst ringside reporters was ten rounds for Welsh, five for Ritchie and five even.

It wasn't until the day after that Ritche changed his opinion of the outcome, then claiming he deserved a draw.
By the time he returned to the US he and his manager were claiming he was robbed.
There was much interest in the fight, Ritchie had been a popular champion and the ban on fight films seems to have greatly helped his cause in claiming he was robbed.
In reality though, virtually eyeryone who actually saw the fight thought the decision was a fair one.

GARBAGE.

In other words, you don't agree?

granberry wrote: GARBAGE.

Is your conclusion on that based on actual research or merely your own opinion.
I'm guessing it's the latter, right?
Because if you have done any actual research on the Welsh-Ritchie fight, and discovered any contradicting reports of it, you would have given them as reference, not just typed "GARBAGE".

As for the McFarland fight in London, Gallimore writes that Welsh was indeed lucky to have gained a draw in that fight.
The consensus opinion was that McFalrand was the better man.
The press were all saying McFarland got robbed.
Welsh also acknowledged that his own performance had been poor.

The referee for that fight, Tom Scott, forever tarnished his reputation.
He would go on to only referee one more fight before being comitted to a mental instituion.

Interestingly though, it was the American press that made a point out of that McFarland had 6-7 lbs heavier than Welsh in that fight.
The Los Angeles Examiner called the fight "a moral victory" for Welsh, since McFarland was indeed a welterweight when they fought.

Throughtout the book, Gallimore also goes through other fights in which Welsh got lucky with the decision.
"Occupation: Prizefighter" is a thorough piece of work.

Welsh was a lightweight 'champion' far below the level of Willie Ritchie, Benny Leonard,
(or Packey McFarland--who never was given a chance at the title).

The bad decision (draw) given Welsh in his bout with the far superior McFarland is typical of what US fighters faced when they went to Europe.

Luckily, the Europeans (French, English) were good when it came to filming fights. I sure wish Harry Greb had gone to England.

Jimmy Jacobs, who is responsible for finding and saving most of the older films, told me in detail how he scoured the British and French libraries for fight films--and how he went about making copies of the old, crumbling films.

Not having any film of Grebb is perhaps one of the sad frustrations of boxing.
One can accept it in an era where film did not exist, but Grebb was around
when we had the means.
Id love to see him in action, even for just a round.

granberry wrote:Welsh was a lightweight 'champion' far below the level of Willie Ritchie, Benny Leonard,
(or Packey McFarland--who never was given a chance at the title).

The bad decision (draw) given Welsh in his bout with the far superior McFarland is typical of what US fighters faced when they went to Europe.

Luckily, the Europeans (French, English) were good when it came to filming fights. I sure wish Harry Greb had gone to England.

Jimmy Jacobs, who is responsible for finding and saving most of the older films, told me in detail how he scoured the British and French libraries for fight films--and how he went about making copies of the old, crumbling films.

Below Leonard, certainly.
Below Ritchie, maybe.

Welsh had some very good wins and ND-wins on his record.
He gave Leonard lots of trouble in their second fight, and won the opinion of most ringside journalists.
He certainly had Charley White's number, White was regarded as one of the very best lightweights during that period.

Welsh also got the nod over Johnny Dundee, and outclassed Abe Attell.
Leach Cross, Joe Rivers and of course elder and more battle worn versions of Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast.
Welsh fought all the best lightsweights of the 1910s and beat most of them.
He has a very solid record and probably deserved the ND in many of the fights he didn't get it - as noted by Ring Lardner.


Nat Fleischer rated Welsh higher than Ritchie.
Here are his all-time lightweight ratings as published in his 1958 book, "50 Years At Ringside":

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Owen Moran
4. Freddie Welsh
5. Battling Nelson
6. Kid Lavigne
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Willie Ritchie
9. Lew Tendler
10. Charley White


Charley Rose had them closer.
Here is his 1968 list:

1. Benny Leonard
2. Joe Gans
3. Jack Blacburn
4. Willie Ritchie
5. Freddie Welsh
6. Tony Canzoneri
7. Joe Rivers
8. Battling Nelson
9. Ad Wolgast
10. Leach Cross

-KOKid- wrote:

granberry wrote:Welsh was a lightweight 'champion' far below the level of Willie Ritchie, Benny Leonard,
(or Packey McFarland--who never was given a chance at the title).

The bad decision (draw) given Welsh in his bout with the far superior McFarland is typical of what US fighters faced when they went to Europe.

Luckily, the Europeans (French, English) were good when it came to filming fights. I sure wish Harry Greb had gone to England.

Jimmy Jacobs, who is responsible for finding and saving most of the older films, told me in detail how he scoured the British and French libraries for fight films--and how he went about making copies of the old, crumbling films.

Below Leonard, certainly.
Below Ritchie, maybe.

Welsh had some very good wins and ND-wins on his record.
He gave Leonard lots of trouble in their second fight, and won the opinion of most ringside journalists.
He certainly had Charley White's number, White was regarded as one of the very best lightweights during that period.

Welsh also got the nod over Johnny Dundee, and outclassed Abe Attell.
Leach Cross, Joe Rivers and of course elder and more battle worn versions of Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast.
Welsh fought all the best lightsweights of the 1910s and beat most of them.
He has a very solid record and probably deserved the ND in many of the fights he didn't get it - as noted by Ring Lardner.


Nat Fleischer rated Welsh higher than Ritchie.
Here are his all-time lightweight ratings as published in his 1958 book, "50 Years At Ringside":

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Owen Moran
4. Freddie Welsh
5. Battling Nelson
6. Kid Lavigne
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Willie Ritchie
9. Lew Tendler
10. Charley White


Charley Rose had them closer.
Here is his 1968 list:

1. Benny Leonard
2. Joe Gans
3. Jack Blacburn
4. Willie Ritchie
5. Freddie Welsh
6. Tony Canzoneri
7. Joe Rivers
8. Battling Nelson
9. Ad Wolgast
10. Leach Cross

Excellent post, KOkid.

Has anybody seen footage of the welsh/ritchie fight from London? I know they destroyed the film in America but this link suggests that footage has survived.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/sites/f ... port.shtml