I am interested to hear what others think of this. Dixon seems like a classic case of an old timer with no prime footage, a very spotty record and a severe late career slump that does not look so impressive to modern eyes. However he was very highly rated at the time and held both the feather and bantam weight titles. Also he had 57 draws according to Wiki! No idea what the convention was in those days with draws (would these have been newspaper decisions of which the results are not known?), but if he won even half of those fights his record starts to look much better at least statistically to modern eyes. @Greg Price99 Do you know much about George please?
Right at the top of the pile for his era. The paucity of records from the era, makes comparison with later p4p greats difficult.
Top twenty pound-for-pound all time. Dixon was a pioneer. As brilliant a technician as his era produced he was as much a pathfinder of boxing technique and style as Tommy Ryan or Nonpareil Jack Dempsey. His prime lasted a decade. Traveling to England to become the first black man to win a world title, he beat Nunc Wallace to claim the old-weight featherweight title, cementing that claim amidst tumultuous scenes against Johnny Murphy upon his return to America, overcoming a world-class opponent as well as multiple attempts at sabotage by a partisan crowd desperate to see him fail. He did not fail. The result was one of the greatest title runs in history that saw him box defense after defense of either the bantam or featherweight titles. Dixon made eight successful defenses and won numerous non-title fights before dropping a questionable decision to Frank Erne. He immediately recaptured his title and avenged himself upon Erne before dropping a legitimate decision to Solly Smith (whom he had previously beaten by knockout). By this point he had been the best fighter in the world for a number of years, but was about to be usurped by the coming Joe Gans. Nevertheless, he reclaimed his title, then received a questionable decision of his own, over Oscar Gardner, his decline seemingly deepening but Dixon, as always, surprised, adding an additional eight title defenses until Terry McGovern chopped him down in 1900. He boxed on for another six years, but wins were few and far between. Having lost four in ten years, he would lose eleven in just two, going 1-10-11 in what heralded the saddest decline of one of the very greatest. He was enormously respected by his peers. What the press thought of Jim Jeffries, fighters thought of Dixon.
I don't have much to add beyond McGrain's excellent post, who is more knowledgeable on Dixon than me. For whatever it's worth, I rank him #3 p4p of 19th century boxers, with only Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Ryan ahead of him.
Yeah, I know you're higher on Dixon than me, and more knowledgeable on him than me tbf, so I'm in no position to debate you on this 1. Ryan was unbeaten at WW. As never anything more than a natural WW, I rank him #9 all time at MW based on his extraordinary record in fights contested in that division, dominating the division post his loss to McCoy. A WW being unbeaten at that weight and than going on to dominate, so consistently, at MW, is hugely impressive to me.
Plenty of writers, including in Boston newspapers, pointed out large part of his record was inflated by careful (and greedy) management of Tom O'Rourke. Some (certain New York authors, in particular, or the Boston Globe at certain period of time) gave him too much praise, such as was the case before his loss to Billy Plimmer, for example. An ATG, of course, but I'd think twice before calling him the best fighter of the decade, as some do.
