PDA

View Full Version : 1900-1930 tournemet(who's your winner?)



old school student
07-31-2005, 01:09 PM
i am a researcher, please help me with this. if all these guys were to square off in there prime, who would be your top 3. All these fighters, i beleive to be white they are all 2nd teir fighters, and i've listed height and weight info that i had, (feel free to list reported weights if not provided, this weight class is from the 155 to 180 range.) my 25 fighters to choose from:
1. 5'8'' GEORGE CHIP
2. 5'7 1/2'' JACK DILLION
3. 5'7 1/2'' FRANK KLAUS
4. 5'9'' BILLY PAPKE
5. 5' 10'' 170LBS JACK ROOT
6. 5' 11 1/2 163LBS GEORGE GARDNER
7. 5'7'' 180LBS TOMMY BURNS
8. 5' 10 1/2'' 167LBS PHILLY JACK O' BRIEN
9. 5'10 163LBS JOE CHOYNSKI
10. 5'11 1/2 180 MARVIN HART
11. 5'9'' JACK TWIN SULLIVAN
12. 6'2'' 178 GUNBOAT SMITH
13. 5' 10'' 175 JAKE KILRAIN
14. 5' 11'' 181 BATTLIN LEVINSKY
15. 6' 1'' 175 YOUNG STRIBLING
16. 5' 10 1/2 174 PAUL BERLENBACH
17. 5' 11 1/2 166 JACK DELANEY
18. 5 11 1/2 181 TOMMY LOUGHRAN
19. ? 167 MAXIE ROSENBLOOM
20. 5' 11 1/2 170 GEORGE CARPENTIER
21. 5'9'' 160 MIKE GIBBONS
22. ? 168 JIMMY DARCY
23. 5'10 180 LEO LOMSKI
24. 5'9'' 175 MIKE MCTIGUE
25. 5'8'' 160 AL MCCOY
P.S. REMEMBER ITS NOT WHO HAD THE BEST CAREER, ITS WHO WOULD COME OUT AT THE TOP, IN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLES COMPITION. I'LL WAIT FOR MY PICKS SO NOT TO SWAY ANYONE, THANKS FOR YOUR HELP.8o

Colin Maclaurin
07-31-2005, 04:41 PM
i am torn between 3: o'brien, burns, or gunboat.

gun to my head i would pick tommy burns: tough, good boxer, hard right hand. pfp i would go with o'brien.

Colin Maclaurin
07-31-2005, 05:09 PM
let me correct myself. it isn't really fair to rate o'brien over hart in terms of who beats who. plus many of the men listed are naturally heavyweights whereas many are natural middleweights so while i think o'brien is the best fighter on the list i will rank them on who beats who as follows ( top 3 ):

1) tommy burns
2) gunboat smith
3) marvin hart

gazot
07-31-2005, 05:18 PM
I would go with Loughran to outbox Burns in the final. I wouldn't call these two or Mike Gibbons, Maxie Rosenbloom, Frank Klaus and a few others on your list second tier fighters. They are all time greats no question. Also Jake Kilrain retired before 1900.

old school student
07-31-2005, 05:31 PM
Many of these middleweights fought the smaller heavyweights of their era. and giving up 20 lbs when they had the speed advantage was common. Tommy was a nautaral middleweight @ 5'7'' just a bit heavyer. I due think due to his lack of punchout power he would get a decsion lost to many of these natural middleweights. I can't see him knockin many of them out in a 15 round bout. which was what i had in mind. Also i realize JAKE KILRAIN missed the cutoff but just barely, and many of these fighters stared before 1900, so it would be assummed at 175 lbs he could fight with these guys.

Roberto Aqui
07-31-2005, 07:15 PM
Don't know what kind of researcher you are, but you've listed some all time greats as 2nd tier. Don't know why any researcher would be interested in opinions on fantasy matchups with all white fighters from the early 20th century.

Tommy Loughran is clearly the class of this bunch but I see no research merit in your tournament. Perhaps you can clarify. Putting together a boxing game?

old school student
07-31-2005, 07:33 PM
Quite clearly they were 2nd teir in peoples all-time ranking of the pre 30 era.
the 1st tier being some of the these(under 190) pre-1930
white fighters (i have many favorite black fighters in this era, i just wanted to trim it down)
Bob fitzsimmons
chales kid mccoy
jim corbett
tom sharkey
mickey walker
harry greb
stanley ketchel
i'm not insulting them by listing them as second tier fighters clearly they are all historicaly all great. that's just as i see it.
All of these i see as the 1st teir fighters of the same era

BDeskins
08-01-2005, 02:02 AM
The following fighters were elite in pretty much the eyes of all that have researched the era, and the argument could be made that I left off a few names. These guys were among the best of the best and nothing second tier about them...

2. 5'7 1/2'' JACK DILLION
3. 5'7 1/2'' FRANK KLAUS
4. 5'9'' BILLY PAPKE
7. 5'7'' 180LBS TOMMY BURNS
8. 5' 10 1/2'' 167LBS PHILLY JACK O' BRIEN
14. 5' 11'' 181 BATTLIN LEVINSKY
16. 5' 10 1/2 174 PAUL BERLENBACH
17. 5' 11 1/2 166 JACK DELANEY
18. 5 11 1/2 181 TOMMY LOUGHRAN
19. ? 167 MAXIE ROSENBLOOM
20. 5' 11 1/2 170 GEORGE CARPENTIER
21. 5'9'' 160 MIKE GIBBONS


1. Tommy Loughran
2. Tommy Burns
3. Jack Delaney, or Jack Dillon


I would pick Sam Langford over all of them though!!

BDeskins
08-01-2005, 05:08 AM
Second tier would be the like of:

Soldier Bartfield
Bob Moha
Italian Joe Gans
George "KO" Brown
Gus Christie
Buck Crouse
Frank Mantell
etc...

StingerKarl
08-02-2005, 01:14 AM
I would go with Loughran here-he was fantastic.
Karl

Mr E
08-03-2005, 12:33 PM
Off the top of my head (using a "catch-weights," as opposed to a "pound-for-pound," criteria), I would rank the top 15 fighters from 'old school's' list like this:

1-Tommy Loughran
2-Maxie Rosenbloom
3-Georges Carpentier
4-Jack Delaney
5-Battling Levinksy
6-Mike Gibbons
7-Jack Dillon
8-Gunboat Smith
9-Paul Berlenbach
10-Young Stribling
11-Tommy Burns
12-Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
13-Joe Choynski
14-Marvin Hart
15-Frank Klaus

IMO, these guys are all FAR from "second tier fighters," but there is no question in my mind that Loughran is the class of the field.

Mr E
08-03-2005, 03:43 PM
Quite clearly they were 2nd teir in peoples all-time ranking of the pre 30 era.
the 1st tier being some of the these(under 190) pre-1930
white fighters (i have many favorite black fighters in this era, i just wanted to trim it down)
Bob fitzsimmons
chales kid mccoy
jim corbett
tom sharkey
mickey walker
harry greb
stanley ketchel
i'm not insulting them by listing them as second tier fighters clearly they are all historicaly all great. that's just as i see it.
All of these i see as the 1st teir fighters of the same era

I'd rate this group, head-to-head, as follows:

1-Harry Greb
2-Jim Corbett
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Stanley Ketchel
5-Mickey Walker
6-Tom Sharkey
7-Kid McCoy

IMO, Loughran would only be an underdog against Greb, and that would be a good fight. I'd make Loughran "pick 'em" against either Corbett or Fitzsimmons and I'd make him a favorite over either Ketchel or Walker. Against Sharkey or McCoy, I think he wins going away -- no contest.

old school student
08-04-2005, 03:33 AM
Nice this was the kind of debate i was looking for MR.E, you appear quite knowledgeable. let me state where i clearly differ in opinion. I have Carpentier rated very low. clearly he has even a bit overrated in his day( george was regarded at that point even higher than greb before the dempsey fight) he was top flight moving up in different weight classes but not near the elite. Battling levinsky should never be that high over guys that dominated him (dillion beat him like 6 times or so) maxie rosenbloom i wouldn't even put higher than paul berlenbach, he was dominated by several of these guys on this list.i like your assesment of jack delaney though but having tommy loughran better i don't know. they fought twice and tommy couldn't beat him . i have him on par with delaney the same.
i see it like this... assuming they are in their prime.:rollin
Young Stribling winning a decsion over jack dillon for the crown.:o
Young beat loughran twice in his prime, beat jimmy slattery who delaney had trouble with, putting him over those two in my mind then beat battlin levinsky then rosenbloom twice then lost to loughran( still won 2 out of 3)having rosenbloom higher is very questionable. Belenbach did beat him though.he seems very low on your list, maxie as 2nd seems had to fathom, paul should be higher.
let's see i see it like this
first level
1. young stribling
2. jack dillion
(these two are very close, dillion has to have a lot more merit than tommy loughran :o , let's see he beat 6 people on this list plus the top heavyweights of the era Miske & Moran) it's a shame they just missed fighting each other.
2nd level
3/4 jack delaney & tommy loughran
5. a very close paul berlenbach
then i'd have the next i'd have
gunboat smith & jimmy slattery (not on the list) and maybe mike gibbons closing it out. i really think tommy burns and george carpentier are in my mind the most overrated on the list.. it's a shame mike gibbons didn't fight george they were in the same era i really think he would have beat him clearly.
8o

Mr E
08-04-2005, 01:14 PM
I enjoy this kind of debate, too, old school, so let's have some fun.

Carpentier had a lot of admirers back in his day -- he's been maligned a lot by more recent historians, 75 years after the fact, but consider his record. In 1915, as a 20-year-old middleweight, he took Joe Jeannette (then a leading heavyweight contender) right down to the wire in losing a close and competetive 15-rounder. As he grew into a full-fledged light-heavyweight, he was able not only to win the World Light Heavyweight Championship (KO4 over Battling Levinsky) but also win and defend the Heavyweight Championship of Europe, demolishing solid heavyweight contenders in Bombardier Billy Wells and Joe Beckett. He also beat Gunboat Smith for the White 'World' Heavy Title when Smith was at his peak. He was also very competetive with Gene Tunney and Tommy Loughran in fights he lost at the end of his career. Yes, he was out-classed against Dempsey, but everyone was in those days. IMO, Carpentier was a quick, talented boxer with a crushing right hand who would have caused a lot of problems for a lot of fighters.

If you count up newspaper decisions, I don't see where Jack Dillon comes out ahead of Battling Levinsky. In fact, I think the contrary is true. More significantly, you have to say Levinsky stretched his limits much more -- fighting very good heavyweights that Dillon wanted nothing to do with (Morris, Brennan, Dempsey, etc.). Head-to-head, they were about even. Looking at total careers, I have to give the edge to Levinsky. [You can't credit either man with beating Billy Miske -- Miske had a decided series edge against both. Plus, the fact that Dillon lost so badly in big bouts against Mike Gibbons really hurts his standing, IMO. You HAVE to rank Dillon below Gibbons.]

Maxie Rosenbloom was a great fighter that even Joe Louis wanted no part of. Who "dominated" him???? Not John Henry Lewis, not Jimmy Slattery, not Paul Berlenbach, not Mickey Walker, not Jim Braddock. [He dropped a couple nods to Slattery early in his career, but waxed him a mile in their 2 title fights. He got robbed in that one decision to Stribling, but that sure doesn''t count against him.]

Stribling was a tough nut, but he lost to Greb, Walker, Loughran, came out about 50:50 v. Slattery -- can't see putting above a guy like Rosenbloom.

TKO11
08-04-2005, 01:15 PM
.....I'm one of those guys maligning Carpentier, but I see no greatness there. He beat Gunboat on a VERY questionable foul, and IMO was nowhere near competitive with either Tunney or Loughran. Tunney knocked him down several times, and beat him from stem to stern. That Carp survived was the only impressive thing he did in that fight. And to quote from the Time Magazine archives re: the Loughran fight:


Last week for nine seconds Carpentier lay on his face in a ring in Philadelphia. At ten he got up. With his eyes glazed, his ears ringing, a cut in his cheek, and his nose oozing like a broken bottle he summoned the wraith of his courage and flailed, thumped, jabbed, socked, lashed at one Thomas Loughran. All agreed that Carpentier is still a game boxer.

And his KO4 over Bat Levinsky (who had been getting the almighty hell beat out of him in most of his ND bouts for the last two years) has frequently been suggested to have been set up, so that it would increase the gate for the hero vs. slacker meeting of him vs. Dempsey. I just don't see any great wins that don't have major question marks. He fought many greats - he was just spanked in most of those matches.

BDeskins
08-04-2005, 06:02 PM
I think Carpentier had some very good wins throughout his career, but like was said, he was not in the elite. I would have to disagree with Strib beating Dillon though as Dillon was the kind of fighter that made Stribling go into a shell and fight too cautiously to really get anything done...unless they were fighting in Georgia.

Mr E
08-04-2005, 06:49 PM
I read at least one account of the Carpentier-Smith bout that said Carpentier had the upper hand throughout and that Smith fouled out to avoid a KO.

As for the Levinsky bout being a set-up, anything was possible in that day and age, but I have never seen anything that made think that was the case. And, UNLESS it was a set-up, that was a very impressive win. Up to that point, Levinsky had had some 200 fights and the only to ever knock him out was Dempsey.

As for the Loughran fight, the quote you provide does not stand for the proposition that the fight was not competetive -- only for the proposition that Carpentier was hurt at one point during the fight and that he showed courage at that point. That said, I'm just going by a second-hand account, not a next-day newspaper account, that I read which remarked that Carpentier gave Loughran a "tough go," even though he was considerably over-the-hill at the time.

As for the Tunney fight, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it all even after 10? Tunney administered a severe beating over the last 3rd of the fight, but that match was no walk in the park for him.

TKO11
08-04-2005, 11:58 PM
I'll see what I can dig up on that fight. From very strong recollections of reading about it, Tunney handled him easily throughout - not to say Carp won no rounds, but Tunney was the better man from the go.

The basis of my feelings toward Carp are less about who he fought ('cause he fought 'em all) or even if he scared them (even rocked the Mauler), but how those fights ended up. The guy lost virtually every high profile fight he was ever in, with his biggest win coming over a welterweight who could scale in the 130s at times (and won the fight on one of the nastiest on-the-break hits you'll ever see). As far as his title-winning effort over Bat, the "champ" had been receiving pounding after pounding for close to two years (but being tough enough to last the distance for NDs), was noticably out-of-shape for Carp, losing the title was a matter of time, and taking the short-end money would have been pretty smart. The title was going to be gone anyway. Carp could just never deliver the real goods.

Mr E
08-05-2005, 03:33 PM
The fights against Wells and Beckett were huge affairs in London -- big spotlight, big pressure bouts that Carpentier showed up for in a big way. If I'm right about how the Gunboat Smith and Battling Levinsky fights went, then those were legit big wins too. [I will confess, though, that your take on Levinsky's record immediately preceeding the Carpentier defense surprises me, so I'm gonna have to go check that out!]

StingerKarl
08-05-2005, 03:36 PM
I agree with you guys that Tommy Loughran is Head of the List.
Interesting names here and some of them will be real close to each other.
Karl