Greatest bareknuckle fighter of all time (head to head)

We have produced lists in the past of who we consider to be the greatest bareknuckle fighters of all time based on resume.

In that at least we have a prety good idea what we are comparing.

Judging how bareknuckle fighters from different periods would fare head to head is much harder.

What I am asking you to atempt to answer is:

Who is the best bareknuckle fighter of all time head to head and why?

The first step towards answering this question is to ask:

Which period produced the best fighters and why?

It is a tough assignment but lets give it a shot.

 

I guess the first questions we should ask is "what do we actualy know when comparing these fighters?"

Talent pool
For most of the history of bareknuckle boxing Britain has produced a larger taqlent pool than the United States. This probably changed after the 1860s when there was a major crackdown on prizefighting in the U.K. which forced most of the top British fighters to emigrate.

The British talent pool was probably biggest in the early 1800s around the time of Cribb Belcher and Pearce based on fight atendance and following. The American talent pool grew steadily through the 19th century and continued to grow untill the 1920s.

Training regime
The first champion to adopt a training regime comparable in its intensity to that of a modern fighter apears to be Tom Cribb as far as I can tell. This suggests to me that the bareknuckle champions of the early 1800s and later would likley have beaten those of previous eras.

Technique
There apears to have been a significant evolution of bareknuckle boxing technique around the late 1800s towards a style more akin to that seen in gloved boxing led by fighters like Nat Langham and Jem Mace. This new style ultimately replaced the more traditional methods used by fighters like Sam Hurst and tom Paddock.

The fighters who employed the traditional stance that the practicioners of the new style overcame (Hurst, Heenan) were perceived to represent a weak era compared to previous ones (Cribb, Belcher, Pearce). Even so we have to consider the possibility that fighters like Mace and King would defeat guys like Cribb and Belcher based on their more modern style.

Contemporary perceptions
Cribb, Belcher and Pearce were seen as representing a golden era by contemporary observers and were thought to be a lot better than subsequent champions such as Caunt and Paddock. Fighters like Nat Langham, Jem Mace and Tom King were seen in some quaters as bringing something new in terms of technique to the game.

The bottom line
It comes down to the question of whether the golden era fighters such as Cribb, Pearce and Belcher could overcome the last genaration of bareknuckle champions such as Mace, King, and Sullivan.

 

Two things make me question how Brain, Belcher and Pearce would have fared against later champions:

1. As far as I can tell Tom Cribb was the first bareknuckle champion to train with a level of intensity and organisation that we might compare to a modern champion.

If champions before Cribb were not training up to this level then they would likley have lost to guys like Jem Mace and Tom King who were.

2. There does seem to have been an evolution of boxing technique in the closing decades of barknuckle boxing away from the traditional stance towards a more queensbury style stance.

Fighters using the new style (Langham, Mace, King) werebeating the best around who employed the old style (Hurst, Heenan). You might argue that weaker champions such as Sam Hurst did not constitute a particularly strong defence of the traditional stance and that guys like Cribb or Belcher would have given a better acount of it. Otherwise you would have to conclude that Mace and King would have probably beated Cribb and Belcher bsed on superior science.

 

They dont even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as the bareknuckle champions of the 19th century.

They were basicaly overhyped bar brawlers.