Is this real? Never saw it like this …

Well it wasn't.. not from that footage.. Siki was picked off all night long by the looks of that... & from what I've read of the fight most report it as a legit Mctigue win. Siki just looked like a clubber winging in wild shots mostly .. mctigue looked the superior boxer.

 

I see nothing there for Bivol or Beterbiev to worry about.

 

Totally disagree. McTigue is running and trying not to engage. He rarely throw's a punch.

 

Really? Took Bivol two attempts not to gas out over 12 with an old Beterbiev.. I think fighting 20 rounds might worry them & potentially alter their styles a little don't u? Let alone fighting twice a month unlike twice a year.. u think that wouldn't worry them? Think harder..

..& who said he beats Bivol anyway? Mctigue was a good LHW in his day but not the top of the pile.. & if he was fighting today he wouldn't be the same fighter.. these days they train to fight twice a year not twice a month.. they have PEDs .. different canvas & gloves.. take Bivol back to those days see how he gets on.. he wouldn't be the same either.. It works both ways.

Greats would be great regardless of era. It's probable that had those older greats fought in a modern era they would have adapted themselves to it & vice versa.

Greatness is something that is inate. It would transcend eras. I don't consider mctigue an ATG tho.. Very good fighter but not an ATG. I like Bivol too but his legacy thus far is beating a 40 year old riddled with injury.. & actually considering that footage is 100 years old i think mctigues upper body movement, punch placement , ability to control pace & ring guile looks pretty damn good even for today..

Bivol has superior footwork yes but he can't crack an egg & mctigue looks slippery as fk to land on consistently.. doubt he'd land significantly enough on the Irishman.. i don't see a Bivol domination even with a 100 years of 'evolution'.

 

Well, who would think that a black man could win a decision in a title fight aganst a white irishman in Dublin on Sct. Patricks Day. Today it is possible, but 100 years ago - never.

 

what punch placement? McTigue rarely punches and when he does its more often than not a “jab” thrown from the hip as more of a means of trying to keep Siki at a distance than to score or hurt. Yeah, he looks slippery but thats all hes doing. Hes running, backing up, literally turning his back, covering up on the ropes. Any fighter will tell you its hard to do anything with a guy just trying to survive and thats exactly what McTigue is doing here. The only thing clever about it is that he clearly knows if he finishes on his feet his countrymen will gift him the championship.

 

Your claim of "home cooking" doesn't hold up. Footage and fight reports from the bout show a grueling 20-rounder where McTigue outboxed Siki, especially in the later rounds. Siki threw wild punches, but McTigue's precision and defense earned him the decision, as noted by ringside accounts. The St. Patrick's Day setting didn’t sway the referee—McTigue’s skill did. Check the YouTube clips and many contemporary reports before crying robbery.

Contemporary Reports: The Irish Times and other accounts describe Siki dominating early with aggressive rushes, but McTigue’s defensive skill and precise jabs took over in the later rounds.

The Freeman’s Journal noted McTigue’s ability to make Siki “appear as a novice” in several rounds, despite Siki’s pressure.

The referee, Jack Smith, awarded McTigue the decision based on his overall impression, as was standard then (no round-by-round scoring). Yes the decision was popular with the Dublin crowd but not universally disputed at the time.

The main source of the grievance comes from Siki & his biographer Peter Benson.

Dr. Gerald Early, an African-American historian, concluded Siki “simply did not fight well,” suggesting McTigue’s victory was plausible regardless of location.

..& yes of course skullduggery could & did happen but i don't think so here.. the consensus among historians and boxing analysts leans toward McTigue’s victory being legitimate.

Your 'black man can’t win in Ireland quip says more about your bias than the McTigue-Siki fight.

 

Some more:

Ring Magazine (April 1923) described McTigue as the “surprise victor,” noting his underdog status against the favored Siki, who had previously upset Georges Carpentier. The report praised McTigue’s “clever footwork and jabbing” while acknowledging Siki’s aggressive style, which “failed to connect consistently.” It mentioned Siki’s post-fight complaints but framed them as frustration rather than evidence of a robbery.

Key Quote: “McTigue’s unexpected triumph came through superior boxing, not luck or favor."

The New York Times (March 18, 1923):
Summary: A brief dispatch reported McTigue’s victory, focusing on the fight’s significance as a world title upset. It noted the 20-round duration and McTigue’s ability to “weather Siki’s early storm” before taking control. The article did not mention controversy but highlighted Siki’s claim of referee bias, which it presented without corroboration.

Key Quote: “McTigue, the Irish challenger, outlasted and outboxed the champion Siki.”

The Manchester Guardian (March 19, 1923):
Summary: This British paper covered the fight via correspondents in Dublin, describing it as a “tough, close contest.” It noted Siki’s early dominance but credited McTigue’s defensive tactics and late-round rally for the win. The report acknowledged Siki’s frustration but suggested it stemmed from his inability to land decisive blows.

Key Quote: “Siki’s power was undeniable, but McTigue’s guile proved the difference.”

I have heard of & read about many contemporary accounts of robberies in those times and the media & historians tended to write on them more often than not.. you would have thought in this case if it was such a robbery more people would have been shouting to the Hills about it.. i think you've just been shadowboxing with your own prejudice pal.. swing harder next time.

 

That just doesnt wash. I can see what I can see here. McTigue is doing nothing to win that fight. This isnt even the long version which used to be on youtube.

Ive never seen a consensus of historians suggesting McTigue legitimately won this fight. Every description of this fight Ive ever read from a historian notes that Siki had no chance to win in Ireland against an Irishman on St. Patricks day while in the midst of a northern Irish uprising that literally witnessed bombs blowing up outside of the theater.

If you can watch this footage and believe McTigue deserved to win then more power to you. We can agree to disagree. I see a guy who is doing everything he can not to fight and being outlanded 10 to 1.

Maybe this is one of the articles you mention:

"Siki is not the slightest bit improved since I saw him last September at Montrouge; he is still ungainly, uncultured, and more of an animal than a human. He has a repellant face; even Sam McVea was good looking by comparison, and as I watched and studied him my abhorrence of the idea that it was ever possible that he should have been given the opportunity to become a world's champion was intensified. With all my might I shall oppose fights between whites and blacks, not because Siki did not fight fairly, but by reason of the repugnance one must inevitably feel at the sight of a negro seeking to belabor a white man. Siki affected what I am sure he felt was a gorgeous dressing-gown of red and purple, and he preened himself, peacock fashion as he sat in his corner waiting for the signal for hostilities to begin; and with the first sound of the gong he went at McTigue with a rattle and a clatter. He swung left and right viciously, and there seemed a likelihood of his winning quickly, for McTigue, carrying himself sideways -his stance is a most unusual one- was forced on the ropes, and Siki went all out to finish the fight there and then. But McTigue stuck out his long left hand, with which he pawed and flecked the broad nose of the negro so that he stung rather than hurt, and giving ample protection to his jaw by means of his shoulder he received small hurt."


It goes on and on like this and that really is the story of the fight. Siki making the fight, throwing and landing by far more of the punches. Keeping McTigue backing up and on the ropes while McTigue retreats, cowers, and paws with his left. I cant think of any scoring criteria where you can judge Siki the loser in the majority of rounds. He was the aggressor, he was throwing more, he was landing more, he landed the harder and more damaging punches, he was the one who was controlling the ring. The only criteria you could use to score McTigue the winner was his nationality and the color of his skin.

And you mention McTigue's late rally. Every single report has that rally taking place over the last three rounds. Even if he won all of those three rounds he still had to have won 8 of the previous 17 by laying on the ropes and doing nothing which most reports admit were a monotonous repeat of McTigue doing just that as Siki did all of the work. Some of those reports dont even give McTigue all of the last three rounds.

This fight was held in Dublin during a rebellion with very little press coverage. The majority of coverage came from Irish sources. You think those might have been biased? How many papers actually sent a warm body to the middle of a warzone to witness that fight? Not many. So you are quoting potentially redundant and biased sources. For example the French press, who werent fans of Siki, and Carpentier who was ringside thought Siki won. Joe Beckett was also ringside and said the conclusion was so far gone by the 16th round he almost walked out but then said the referee had made the right decision. How can a fight be so one sided after 16 rounds that you are ready to walk out and then a rally in the last three completely alters the course of the fight with no knockdowns and no real beating in those rounds? Doesnt happen.

 

Some good exchanges here gentlemen and good sources provided... Siki looked the busier man, with McTigue looking to ride out a victory... I see more safety than gagey movement and of course Boxing Corruption & prejudice is hardly a surprise, even now, nevermind then to under class Blackmen, especially with such National Pride & Sentiment on the line.

I don't see a McTigue grand performance, I see a spoiling cautious safety just run the distance decided strategy knowing it can't lose in such environments.

Hell that was par for England overall and Ireland given such National Hope & Opportunity, well given the usual Boxing BUSINESS type of practices, it easy to see, one couldn't lose.

Great Footage and hard to go pro McTigue from.

Just this one man's observation.
Cheers fellas.

 

Amazing footage. Thanks for sharing.

Of course I couldn’t say for sure but if I had to guess, I would say AI involved to fatten up the frame rate for greater fluidity, also upscaling etc.

Though there are some surprisingly quality films from the era but under much more conducive, pointedly set conditions.

1923 - could you imagine Dempsey - Firpo of equal quality? Wow

 

From the chapter on Mike from my book "The Heavyweight Book", an encyclopaedia of Irish Heavyweight boxing.
"A near capacity crowd had braved the dangerous streets to see the promotion of Jim Singleton, who availed of the good fortune that saw Siki incredibly smash French idol Georges Carpentier to defeat in front of his adoring French fans to claim the world title. The Senegalese fighter was really pushing the boat out by fighting an Irishman, in Dublin, on Saint Patrick’s Day in the middle of a Civil War, even if a majority of the experts at the fight thought he deserved the nod. The grainy film that remains of the fight bear out the press reports, with Siki always the aggressor but ineffective and wild, while McTigue, who damaged his right hand in the thirteenth session, boxed in his peculiar defensive side ways style behind a peppering left jab. It appears to be one of these fights where a clash of styles led to a pretty boring fight and you either favoured the attacking attitude of Siki or the defensive adroitness of Mike. Bartley Madden, the Galway heavyweight had acted as a sparring partner for Mike and was in his corner with manager Charlie Brennan and chief second Ted Broadribb.