This was the most stimulating fight I've had the pleasure of watching, studying, and posting on in a few days. Now, I know there was rumor then, as there is now, that this fight was a fix, so I'm not going to pass any judgment myself, but only tell things as I saw them. Besides, the camera was not zoomed in very far, so accusing the fight of being fixed would be extremely difficult to prove by anything that occurred in the video. Round 1-This fight was different from all the previous Carpentier fights I had watched up to this point. Siki was one of those fighters that fought low and charged his way in, so Carpentier was naturally not used to this, and defensive because of it. However, Carpentier still managed to drop Siki with a crisp right counter midway through the round. Carpentier. Round 2-Skipped in the film. My guess is it went to Carpentier. Round 3-Definitely the most active round of the fight. Carpentier dropped Siki twice. Siki managed to hang tough though and fought back, scoring a knockdown of his own, making it now 3-1 in favor of Carpentier. As soon as Carpentier was up, the two stood toe-to-toe and blasted away at one another with long haymakers. Then the ball rang. Carpentier. Round 4-The fourth was knockdown-free, but still briskly fought like the 3rd. Siki was opening up more with big shots that had Carpentier mildly hurt. Carpentier finally threw back a good right hook that stunned Siki. Now it was Georges' turn to pummel Siki. He kept up a long barrage of rights and lefts, but he was tiring. After Carpentier slowed down, Siki continued his interrupted barrage once again. Although Carpentier was a lot worse off from Siki's attacks than visa versa, this was a close round. Siki. Round 5-The two came out fighting head to head in this round. Pretty soon, Siki was battering Carpentier all around the ring. Siki staggered all the way across the ring at the end of the round. I couldn't tell if it was a knockdown or not. Carpentier did have Siki hurt a little after that, and bulled him into the corner where I think he was trying to finish him off, but Siki weathered it. Even if I would call that a knockdown, Siki otherwise pounded Siki so badly in this round that I would still give it to him. Siki Round 6-This is one of those "knockouts" you have to watch a couple of times. Siki does come out winging it, and Carpentier is reeling from it. But rather than watching the series of punches watch the legs. Before Carpentier goes down, Siki bangs his left leg against Carpentier's right knee, causing him to go down, and grab his leg. If you watch after, Carpentier cannot even stand up without the help of his corner. It was clearly an intentional foul on Siki's part. Verdict: Regardless of fix accusations, this is a classic. Siki was down three times for sure, and Carpentier was down twice. I am especially eager to hear what you guys think about this fight.
So who do you think was in the right? The ref for DQing Siki at first? Or the judges for overturning the decision and giving Siki a knockout win? Did you see Siki vs Mike McTigue? I have 20 or so mins of that fight and I think McTigue may of won that one on my card.
I think Siki should have remained DQ'd. The leg throw was clearly intentional. I have not seen Siki vs. McTigue. I didn't know there was film of it on the internet. I just looked and there's a 4 min. clip on youtube I will watch.
Yeah even today when this fight is brought up people argue about who was right or not. And that the ref was in the "fix" to make sure Carpentier was still champ after the fight. I do recall the fix story was brought up shortly after the fight, all from one source, Siki. Claiming how he double cross Carpentier and knock him out only for the ref to try to steal away his win. But I think the fight was on the level, They were really going at each other for 6 rounds. I am not sure why the judges over turn the ref's decision. Perhaps they felt it did not in no way determined the out come of the fight? Did they miss the leg throw? Or what? Both parties were having a argument before they decided that Siki was the winner.
I totally agree w/ your own thoughts. I think the fight was on the level as well. Most fixes are one-sided, or they are weird-looking knockouts. This, on the other hand, was a two-sided back-and-forth fight. I mean just going off my description, they took turns whopping each other and they traded an abnormal amount of knockdowns. A fix has to follow a pattern. You can't plan and script the kind of action that took place in this fight like it did. I think you're right too. The decision shouldn't have been reversed. However, I have never known quite how to explain away the fact that Siki claimed the fight was thrown. I can't see why the man who won would throw negative light on himself by admitting it was a fix. The loser might do that, but not the winner. The other thing that troubles me though is this: If Siki's not telling the truth, why the hell would he fabricate that story? As I see it, he has nothing to gain from it? @KasimirKid, I know you're very knowledgeable about the old fights. I anxiously await your thoughts on this one. What do you think about all this? Do you think the action was real? What do you think about the original decision, and then the one that followed? What's your analysis of Siki's claims of it being a thrown fight? Which is more logical? The fight was on the level, or a fix?
Always wondered about this one and was never sure based on the footage .. read a lot about it and both fighters accounts .,. seems Carpentier may have been not in top shape and expected an easy match .. Siki was a loose cannon of sorts .. not sure if the leg injury ended his ability to fight or of he wanted to use it as an excuse to get the win ..
My take is Carpentier seemed to be dominating through two rounds and then it abruptly turned around. The narrator on the film I watched said Carpentier broke knuckles on his right hand, and also wasn't in the best of shape. There certainly might be something to the broken hand claim, as Carpentier seemed to only cuff with that hand for the rest of the fight. Siki was strong, but looks very crude, and wide open. The fight was sloppy with both men falling to the floor a lot, apparently often from slips or simple poor balance. Hard to judge how many were knockdowns. As for the ending, Siki clearly throws his leg out to trip Carpentier. My guess is Carpentier exploited that for a foul claim, but I have only my guesswork on the matter. This is a very fine film, better than most taken in America at the time, and a fun fight to watch, if hardly a display of elevated boxing skill. As for the fight originally being a fix, but in the event fought honestly? Who knows?
Both Carpentier (in his final biography) and Siki (at the time) agree that the fight was planned ahead of time as a fix. And they both claim they were double crossed. If these claims are to be believed**, they had agreed to disregard the rules of the game and fight according to their own private set of rules, so any outcome is okay with me. Siki was PO'd because he felt Georges had violated their pre-fight agreement to go easy, so who's to say he was wrong in what he did? Given all that, Carpentier got what he deserved whether he was tripped or not. When you play with fire you might get burned. Georges was foisted on his own petard. Viewed as fight rather than just an exercise in cloak and dagger intrigue, Siki had taken command and was well on his way to victory so a little old trip really didn't make a difference. It only hastened the outcome. Viewed as entertainment, it is fun to watch. Much of what went on in the ring is bizarre behavior when viewed through the lens of what we as boxing fans are used to seeing in a fight, and it's fun to try and figure out what each was thinking as the action unfolds. Below is McVey's description of Carpentier's version of the scenario from Georges' autobiography. I think McVey's description is reasonably accurate: "In his autobiography Carpentier says Siki was afraid of him and to convince him to take the fight Carpentier and Deschamps agreed to carry him for 4 rounds then ko him with a not too heavy blow ,Deschamps had a contract with a film company and needed to have a few rounds of footage. "Once it was agreed Carpentier say he stopped training as it was to be a bagged fight. Carpentier said when the fight started Siki, shaking with fright went down on one knee from a grazing blow,and was ordered up by the referee who said," get up you haven't been touched ". He said the referee warned Siki several times about not trying to fight,and that making a lot of unnecessary movements , trying to make it look good,made himself winded because he wasn't in shape. "The Frenchman said he saw an opening to finish things in the 4th but adhering to the script didn't take it,at that moment, he claims Siki threw a big swing that dropped him, he said it was a reflex punch born out of fear on the part of the Senegalese.Carp was down for 5 ,got up angry hit Siki with a big right hand ,but the punch was not delivered correctly and landed on Siki's head and his hand was damaged,Carp makes a racist remark about "hitting a Negro's head it tantamount to breaking your hand,and that between rounds Siki's manager urged him to double cross the one handed Carpentier. "Carp was down again in the 6th, his legs weak and wobbly.Deschamps threw in the towel but the referee who according to Carp had seen Siki deliberately trip him up ruled he was dsq'd with the agreement of the 3 judges. "Carp says the reaction from the crowd was so vociferous that the President of the French Boxing Federation had a brief conflab and overruled their decision,declaring Siki the winner. That's Carpentier's version of events anyway." **It is conceivable Carpentier's pride in his reputation as a prize fighter may have trumped his pride in his reputation as an honest competitor and caused him to go along with Siki's claim of a fix rather than admit he was beaten by a fighter as crude as Siki. However, since they both claimed the outcome was pre-arranged, I think we have to accept their statements as fact in the absence of any definitive evidence to the contrary.
Do you still have the 20 or so minutes of the Siki McTigue fight? I remember it used to be on YouTube but now I can't find it anywhere.
Its somewere. Not sure why they are taken down these over 100 year old fights. How long does these copywrites last?
Museums also take claim to them as heritage items or something? I forget, but some do end up in archives as history items.
