Can anyone tell me about Jimmy Barry (Bantamweight)

Bantamweight back in Barry's day was much smaller. Like Minimumweight today. He was a mouse of a man. A good one to do some studying on, but I can't legitimately call him an all time great if only for the fact that he fought in an era almost completely bereft of true talent or refinement.

 

I know Barry came to the UK in 1897 ,and fought Walter Croot at the NSC Covent Garden , Barry got the 20rds dec ,and Croot later died as a result of injuries sustained in the fight.

 

As others have said, Barry was never realy more than a flyweight.

He seems to have been a verry complete package, being both a good technician and a good puncher. He was regarded as something of a marvel in his day.

He remains something of an enigma because he fought in the division and era where surviving records are most sparse.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Bump

 

Classing him a Bantamweight I'm a historical sense is a bit strange for me.

Whilst he was champion George Dixon was also a champion at 118 pounds, Barry's claim was fought below the Flyweight limit.

Also historically George Dixon is viewed as an ATG bantamweight champion which kinda nullifies Barry completely imo.

Also the Flyweight division has no historical champion during this same era, and technically speaking Barry was a paperweight champion which no longer exists but is certainly much closer to flyweight than bantamweight.

For me he should be remembered as a flyweight and a great one at that.

But I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong.

 

At the time from what I've seen he was always called a bantamweight rather than a paperweight. When I've seen paperweight talked about it was in Aus much later. I might have missed some that go against that, though.

Really it seems to have been a disagreement about what weight bantamweight should have been. Apparently Barry dismissed McGovern as a bantamweight for not fighting at close to the proper 105Ib limit.

In terms of bantamweight rankings, I'd agree on focusing on the weight they fought at rather than the name of the division, but I also think you shouldn't impose rules on a time before they were created.

 

That's exactly why it makes his claim irrelevant. They fought at different weights.

Barry never once claimed to be champion at 118 pounds, Dixon did. Torpedo Murphy did. Pedlar Palmer did.

Barry was great, without doubt, but shouldn't be ranked alongside 118 pound fighters.

 

I misread your post, and I've edited now.

I don't know of Murphy ever claiming the Bantamweight title, I think he only claimed it at Feathweight.

I disagree his claim is irrelivant, it shouldn't be considered the later Bantweight title.

Just doing a quick search now, and Barry was called a Paperweight at the time, but he was called a Bantamweight far more.

It's not quite as extreme, but Ryan fought Needham for the vacant Welterweight title, but I don't think there'd be any sense in calling it a Super Lightweight contest. The divisions back then just weren't the same as now

 

It's not about imposing rules with hindsight, it's more about recognising boxers amongst their peers.

If you fight at 118 as a champ you should be recognised alongside the other champs who fought at 118, imo.

Murphy might never have referred to himself as a BW champ, neither might have Palmer or Dixon. But they were world champion at 118 pounds.

Barry never once claimed to be world champion at 118 pounds.

Some moved the limits up as champ and it was allowed, some tried moving the limits and it wasn't (McGovern and Corbett for example) so you do have to be a bit careful.

But if we're looking at Barry from a historical perspective, it makes sense to look at him alongside champions who were the same size, imo.

 

Also when you look at lineage of titles, when Barry retired who took up his specific claim as succession?

I don't see anyone claiming to be a 110 pound champ after Barry.

Seems to be 118-120 which then settled down to 118 and 122 which became 118 and 126.

As far as I can tell.

But I don't see anyone claiming 110 and then moving it up to 118 like every other division did.

 

Kid Murphy claimed the title at 105, and lost it to Johnny Coulon, who then moved up in weight, and later also won the larger Bantamweight title.

You can find some other claimants at the weight, I'd need to look into that though

 

Johnny Coulon is actually the "other" "bantamweight" I wouldn't consider a Bantamweight historically speaking, atleast for a large part of his career.

The old paperweight lineage really confuses things when looking back, have two lineages going on the 105-110 and the 118-120.

I don't vociferously argue the point if someone says Barry and Coulon are great Bantamweight Champions, I just think there were world champion claimants at 118 pounds who had just as valid a claim.

Coulon unified the two lineages so from then on its no issue.

Do you class the paperweight lineage as the "true bantamweight" lineage, or do you recognise the claims of palmer, McGovern, Forbes etc as "true bantamweight"

For me one is closer to flyweight and actually beneath the Flyweight limit, as I said I'm not vociferous about it.