Henry Armstrong vs Ike Williams

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Senya13

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
from post #25 and further

A good read, but all I'm seeing is a lot of name dropping.

You stated yourself that:

another reason why I rate the turn of the century higher is they were more successful against heavier opposition, they didn't mind fighting (and often beating) welterweights, middleweights, some of them even went on to beat heavyweights.

Do you not think this is indicative of a less professional sport rather than an on-average better class of boxer?

[Senya13]

Some outgrew the lightweight division, some ran out of opponents at that division. Anyway, I think the lightweights talent was as deep as ever around 1900 and 1920, I don't see 1940 overcoming that depth. Some names on that old thread could be added (say, Patsy Kline or Benny Valger for the 1920s; Danny Duane for 1900, etc.' it is hard to recall all the names without going through the records, name by name). Jack O'Brien whom I listed for 1900 was the New York one, rather than the more popular O'Brien from Philadelphia, not as good, but still a top contender, strong and tough.

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Some outgrew the lightweight division, some ran out of opponents at that division. Anyway, I think the lightweights talent was as deep as ever around 1900 and 1920, I don't see 1940 overcoming that depth. Some names on that old thread could be added (say, Patsy Kline or Benny Valger for the 1920s; Danny Duane for 1900, etc.' it is hard to recall all the names without going through the records, name by name). Jack O'Brien whom I listed for 1900 was the New York one, rather than the more popular O'Brien from Philadelphia, not as good, but still a top contender, strong and tough.

That guy was a B**CH to fight. Very difficult. Whipped Sam Langford; Sam later calling him the fastest man he ever encountered. Tended to be rather inconsistent, though. Looked like a champ one fight, then a third rater in a loss to someone he should have creamed. I'm betting he was a drinker/partier. That would account for that inconsistency. Rough and even a bit dirty, too. Would have given Mysterious Billy Smith and Tom Sharkey a run for their money in that dept.

Retired early, then disappeared and died young.

[McGrain]

I agree that the lightweight division was deepest late 1890's to 1915ish. It was fucking horrible around that time. But it's not like the 40's were shy, great fighters.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Surf-Bat

That guy was a B**CH to fight. Very difficult. Whipped Sam Langford; Sam later calling him the fastest man he ever encountered. Tended to be rather inconsistent, though. Looked like a champ one fight, then a third rater in a loss to someone he should have creamed. I'm betting he was a drinker/partier. That would account for that inconsistency. Rough and even a bit dirty, too. Would have given Mysterious Billy Smith and Tom Sharkey a run for their money in that dept.

Retired early, then disappeared and died young.

Sounds like a fascinating one. You taken a closer look? I think of him as a "business" fighter.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Theron

15 Rounds Lightweight

I like Ike , come into him and you get hammered, even if you are Armstrong.

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Sounds like a fascinating one. You taken a closer look? I think of him as a "business" fighter.

"Business" as in throwing fights? That's possible, I suppose. Haven't given it much thought. He was Irish, so I figured he may have adhered to the stereotype. Like Mickey Walker and Jack McAuliffe, looking great some nights, looking awful in others.

[Senya13]

Duane was used to fighting using one set of rules, but when he went to other cities, they enforced different set of rules.

Loss to Kid Thomas - a disqualification for hitting in the clinches, incompetent referee, the club changed its rules as the result to allow infighting.

Loss to Jack Robinson - rules are to blame, plus a non-compenent referee.

Loss to Otto Sieloff - legitimate. Knocked down, then finished; Sieloff had the better of the bout anyway.

Loss to Jack Ryan - both were hitting in the clinches, but Duane was disqualified.

A draw with Sam Bolan - incompetent referee, Duane outpointed Bolan three to one.

Draw with Kid Griffo - pre-arranged decision if both were on their feet, with Duane having the better of it.

A draw with Belfield Walcott - Duane had the better of most of the rounds, making Walcott look like a novice.

Loss to Martin Canole - a foul blow below the belt which was not allowed.

Loss to Billy Gardner - Duane used his elbows in the clinches, warned twice, then disqualified; Gardner had the better of the bout though.

Loss to Kid Griffo - a foul blow which was at first disallowed (when Griffo saw the referee's count nearing ten, he got up), but several seconds after they had resumed the bout, the referee changed his mind and disqualifed Duane.

No decision with Jack Blackburn - Duane knocked Blackburn out with a blow to the stomach, Jack was counted out, but later the referee changed his mind and claimed he gave no decision.

Loss to Eddie Haney - reported as Danny Duane of Savannah, so possibly a different fighter, but the disqualification was of the same kind as usual - hitting in the break-away.

Draw with Otto Sieloff - an even fight.

[Surf-Bat]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Duane was used to fighting using one set of rules, but when he went to other cities, they enforced different set of rules.

Loss to Kid Thomas - a disqualification for hitting in the clinches, incompetent referee, the club changed its rules as the result to allow infighting.

Loss to Jack Robinson - rules are to blame, plus a non-compenent referee.

Loss to Otto Sieloff - legitimate. Knocked down, then finished; Sieloff had the better of the bout anyway.

Loss to Jack Ryan - both were hitting in the clinches, but Duane was disqualified.

A draw with Sam Bolan - incompetent referee, Duane outpointed Bolan three to one.

Draw with Kid Griffo - pre-arranged decision if both were on their feet, with Duane having the better of it.

A draw with Belfield Walcott - Duane had the better of most of the rounds, making Walcott look like a novice.

Loss to Martin Canole - a foul blow below the belt which was not allowed.

Loss to Billy Gardner - Duane used his elbows in the clinches, warned twice, then disqualified; Gardner had the better of the bout though.

Loss to Kid Griffo - a foul blow which was at first disallowed (when Griffo saw the referee's count nearing ten, he got up), but several seconds after they had resumed the bout, the referee changed his mind and disqualifed Duane.

No decision with Jack Blackburn - Duane knocked Blackburn out with a blow to the stomach, Jack was counted out, but later the referee changed his mind and claimed he gave no decision.

Loss to Eddie Haney - reported as Danny Duane of Savannah, so possibly a different fighter, but the disqualification was of the same kind as usual - hitting in the break-away.

Draw with Otto Sieloff - an even fight.

Fascinating And meticulously researched

Thanks Senya. Well done!

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Some outgrew the lightweight division, some ran out of opponents at that division. Anyway, I think the lightweights talent was as deep as ever around 1900 and 1920, I don't see 1940 overcoming that depth. Some names on that old thread could be added (say, Patsy Kline or Benny Valger for the 1920s; Danny Duane for 1900, etc.' it is hard to recall all the names without going through the records, name by name). Jack O'Brien whom I listed for 1900 was the New York one, rather than the more popular O'Brien from Philadelphia, not as good, but still a top contender, strong and tough.

With respect, I think my point would need addressing in a little more detail if I were to concede that the lightweights in 1945 were less talented.

I believe that boxing around the turn of the century was less professional and competitive. Not to say it wasn't either of those, but as the sport developed it became more so.

I'm of the opinion that by 1900, fist fighting had been around for thousands of years and particularly in the preceding hundred years it had refined itself even more. There were some great fighters.

That said, as popularity increased, gyms opened and communication improved, the overall standard surely must have raised the bar.

[MadcapMaxie]

I'd have to go for a dec by Armstrong due to the constant pressure and volume punching, tho I don't think he'd stop Williams. Ike for me is similiar to Robinson, fought in energetic, dynamic bursts but unlike Robby footwork was too plodding and he didn't seem overly too concerned with dictating distance. He'd be unknowingly fighting Henry's fight.

[Senya13]

Compared to 1940s, a lot of bouts are missing at boxrec for 1890-1920, in particular from Phila and NY, I'd estimate that at certain times (based on what I saw in local papers) some half a hundred bouts per day may be missing in boxrec database, just from those two cities, and despite the no-decision rules. Summing them up, that's many thousands of bouts for each decade. I'm not sure there were more clubs or gyms in the 1940s.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Compared to 1940s, a lot of bouts are missing at boxrec for 1890-1920, in particular from Phila and NY, I'd estimate that at certain times (based on what I saw in local papers) some half a hundred bouts per day may be missing in boxrec database, just from those two cities, and despite the no-decision rules. Summing them up, that's many thousands of bouts for each decade. I'm not sure there were more clubs or gyms in the 1940s.

Of course. Incomplete records from that period are rife.

I would think there were many more boxing gyms and a more organised boxing community. You can bet Dempsey and Louis played a big part in that.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Senya13

Compared to 1940s, a lot of bouts are missing at boxrec for 1890-1920, in particular from Phila and NY, I'd estimate that at certain times (based on what I saw in local papers) some half a hundred bouts per day may be missing in boxrec database, just from those two cities, and despite the no-decision rules. Summing them up, that's many thousands of bouts for each decade. I'm not sure there were more clubs or gyms in the 1940s.

S, you are so right about fights of the past not RECORDED on boxing record sites. I for one SAW Ray Robinson decision Bobby Dykes in Coney Island,
Bklyn, NY ,a few years after Robby decisioned Bobby Dykes ,Nov 8,1950 in Chicago...See it I did along with a thousand or more fans in the early 1950s and there is no record of that bout....

[Senya13]

The war had a lot to do with that as well, I suppose, as there was a very large increase of bouts held from 1946 on. But decade by decade, 1940s is behind 2000s, 1930s and 1920s. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]