Just wondering how you guys rate him ? I've seen alot of people rate him as the best or second best bantamweight of all time. I'm not sure he deserves to be that high.
He sure does. Firstly you would have to consider that he might well have been the greatest fighter of the 19th century in any weight class. Despite being no more than a bantemweight, he was the longest reigning champion in the featherweight divisions history, in an era that was stacked. Some sources indicate that he and not Joe Louis might hold the record for greatest number of title defences. Even the great Gans was compared unfavourably to Dixon by some, during his prime.
This is my issue with rating him the best ever bantamweight. To be quite honest I dont know alot about most of his opponents.
I think that says as much about the era's and divisdions that the ibhof neglect as anything else. Also, when you dig a bit deeper you will find that nearly all of his draws and decision bouts should have been scored in his favour.
Which of the decision loses should have been in his favor? Dixon has prime decision losses to Erne, Smith and Pilmer. IMO Dixon rates 4th as the best lower weight fighter from the 1890's to early 1900's behind Gans, Griffo, and McGovern.
I don't find Mendoza's position that objectionable. I have had a root around, nothing serious mind, and I've found a mix of stuff. Basically i'm waiting for either Pea or Janitor to open a thread on which losses were twisted. If no-one does it by Febuary of 2011, i'll do it,hehe.
Janitor, I read that Griffo got the better of Dixon in the series. How did Dixon give Mcgovern all he could handle? Mcgovern TKO'd him in 8, and beat him via decision in six? McGovern Ko'd Palmer in 1, and Palmer " drew " with Dixon. Of course McGovern romped Gans in two though some feel ( not me ) it was a fix. The talent level in the lower weights was better in the early 1900's. In the 1890's it was not quite as good.