Greatest bareknuckle fighter of all time (head to head)

RDJ! Great to see you again.

I'm pretty well thanks. Not sure how long I'll be staying around, but it's nice to be back again.

How are you?

 

for me its got to be jem mace. there could be arguments for guys who've already been mentioned, like cribb, jackson, mendoza etc, but i'm still going with mace. in my opinion he was the best of the best and by far the best we (england) ever produced.

 

What I'd Love To See, If Possible:

If I remember aright, this is an incredibly knowledgeable boxing forum. There's been some great stylistic analysis done here.

If you fellows (and I) could actually take the material I've posted on the previous page (and whatever else we can find) and do a head-to-head stylistic breakdown of a Sullivan-Belcher fight--even though such a comparison would be incredibly rough--it would probably be the first in-depth analysis of a fight between these two bareknuckle legends.

More importantly, imagine the challenge of reconstructing a fight between two men with thirty seconds of ancient film between them!

 

I'm okay-ish, had my ups and downs. My first fight as well last April. Lost a decision, but had a great time. Was going to fight again but tore my ankle ligament thingy in May. I'm the slow starting guy in orange.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX4xiraFw_8[/url]

Stick around man, good to have you back

(and if you don't just visit us once every while)

 

I'd be inclined to say Tom Cribb, but then I'd probably rate him too high, especially over guys like Lee Richmond, Mendoza, and Jem Mace.

 

The difference with Sullivan was he was a man apart. He was born 80 decades too late. It should have been Belcher, Pearce, Cribb and Sullivan, if only to satisfy Ted Spoons pugilistic fantasy's.

The aspect about Belcher that is hard to pass up against anyone is that not only did he lose his eye, but he came back to fight in not as good physical knick as he once had been. That he still fought Pearce and Cribb like he did after the accident is amazing.

There is the possibility that Sullivan was physically stronger than Belcher, and that is probably where he'd have to make his stand. Get close quickly and try to slam Jem onto the floor for potential injuries.

 

I don't think we can say for sure. There is no film, and the reading material on the fighters is limited. I would guess Mace or Sullivan, but its a guess.

Reading Fistainia would help a bit.

 

Heartily agree with the first statement. Gloves, or 'mufflers' were in circulation in Figg's day, encouraging new pupils in incorporate new daring techniques.

With regards to the choice to fight with gloves, it was heavily influenced by the fact Bare Knuckle fights were being comprehensibly squeezed out of the picture as a collective feeling of its primitive nature, helped along by new n' improved English bobbies, hounded it to its grave. The London Prize Rules use to be embellished by all, at this point it was getting sternly frowned upon.

Without downgrading any of Mace's vaunted ability, it must be pointed out that Sam Hurst was a cruder operator who was dragged through a few rounds to help Mace's reputation. King was a decent fighter and rocked Mace to his boots with one stiff wallop. Against the likes of Belcher and Pearce he would be getting hit far more often and the target would have many more reserves.

To be fair the said men were likely the best ever to fight with bare fists, but the thread called for them.

 

It's easy. Charles Bronson.