SURVEY CLOSED

Yeah but as WW he had no right beating the men he beat.

He was an absolute sensation.

I mean let's look at his meaningful losses one by one (I won't get into NWS or anything below 10 rounds)

Kid Lavigne: at LW, drained and needed a ko to win
Tommy West: at WW, later avenged
Kid Lavigne: at LW, drained
Mysterious Billy Smith: at WW, later avenged
Tommy West: WW, fix, later avenged
Kid Carter: MW, controversial DQ, later avenged
Kid Carter: MW, later avenged
George Gardner: LHW
Frank Childs: HW
Sandy Ferguson: HW
Dixie Kid: WW, controversial DQ
Young Peter Jackson: LHW, he'd already beaten him
Honey Melody: WW, by this point he's 33 and past prime.

So as a WW, anyone who'd beaten him he returned the favour.

As a LW he probably would have won the first with Lavigne had there been no rule about needing a knockout.

As a MW, anyone who beat him he returned the favour.

He held his own at LHW and HW which is ridiculous to even contemplate.

He fought on even terms with Gans and Walcott.

The guy is an unquestionable great who had the deck stacked against him, yet still prevailed.

His WW greatness is beyond question imo.

His P4P greatness is beyond question imo.

 

George Dixon is essentially the creator of the slick black boxing style.

 

I find lists most rewarding when it's based on my own research, opinions and subjectivity.

But it is a chore at the lower weights (bantamweight and below) the for me as I don't know as much as I'd like to.

 

Looks like a discount Joe Gans to me.

 

Joe Gans learnt his boxing style from George Dixon lol

 

Can’t argue with that, it’s a shame I never really ventured below lightweight in my own research, because there are some ridiculously good fighters at the lower weights and your average fight at the lower weights are way more action packed. I don’t know if Flea Man still posts here regularly, but I feel like I let the guy down

 

In terms of weight Gardner was fighting at middleweight and Young Peter Jackson was fighting at Welterweight around the time they fought Walcot, though I've not looked into the weights for the specific fights.

On his first fight with Lavigne there's a lot of speculation and the reports are overall a bit ambiguous, but my overall impression edges towards Lavigne, how much of an advantage he got because of the rules is hard to say.

Don't get me wrong, he was certainly one of the greats, I think he tends to get blown out of proportion sometimes.

 

I've listed the weights based on reports I've read.

He got a massive advantage because of the rules. Walcott could only via knockout, anything else is a Lavigne win.

 

Great, and I mean great lists, you have saved me writing one up pretty much, with one glaring ( for me ) mistake, Johnson at 4 !!!!! I reckon nearly all the fighters below him, could have beaten him, not withstanding his great boxing ability, and near perfect defense, just cannot put him at 4, sorry .

 

I stop at SBW usually tbh.

My knowledge of bantamweights and flyweight is paper thin

 

Thanks for the kind words!

Re Johnson at 4 - it's not a h2h rating, that's for sure.

H2H is a tricky one at heavyweight due to the obvious size differences over time. So, for example, do I think Lennox Lewis would have beaten Johnson? Yes. But did Lennox dominate his era like Johnson did his? No, I don't think he did. Johnson was probably the best heavyweight in the world for nearly 15 years. Lewis wasn't consistently the man (albeit he was unlucky in being frozen out of title shots at key points) during his era.

But I know plenty of people would probably switch the positions I have for these fighters. The difference between the best fighters is paper thin after the top 2.

 

But there is also the lack of number 1 contenders Johnson faced during his career.

 

His title run was abysmal, however his pre title run was much better