Boxing was most popular in the 1910's/1920's?

[ChrisPontius]

I often hear how this was the golden age of boxing with an enormous depth of talent because of the amount of participants. If this is true, can anyone explain why the heavyweight division was rather ordinary from 1915-1930?

Almost half of the top heavyweights were light heavyweights, particularly during Dempsey's reign. What does that say about the heavyweight division? While Gibbons, Tunney and Carpentier were fine fighters, it's not like boxers of their level weren't around during other later eras; yet they never made up such a big portion of the heavyweight division as during the early 20's.

On top of that, the entire black race had an additional problem of competing and trouble getting a title shot when one was well-earned. Wills saw his dream of being the heavyweight champion crushed by racism, although it may have been only one factor; Dempsey's management being an other. Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey also had their share of trouble from it, although Johnson could be blamed for them not getting a shot, too.
Gains and Godfrey didn't exactly have as glorious careers as they could've either, though again it's not entirely the fault of racism. But it undeniably surpressed the talent.

[flamengo]

Perhaps, with each generation and Renaisseance, the game continues to grow in popularity, although its a challenge to determine the extent of the current wealth of interest when compared with the past... I believe the interest of the game has wained very little, at any stage, although, the current era seems to be provinding an alphabet of names, titles and promotions.... Very few, however, inspire the adulation of the late 19th century, 30s/40s, 60s/early 70s.. Tyson, with the proper management and guideing, may well have been the first sportsman to exceed the US$1billion mark through earnings and promotions... Does he currently have any personal fortune not being pursued by the I.R.S??????

[janitor]

I often hear how this was the golden age of boxing with an enormous depth of talent because of the amount of participants. If this is true, can anyone explain why the heavyweight division was rather ordinary from 1915-1930?

Almost half of the top heavyweights were light heavyweights, particularly during Dempsey's reign. What does that say about the heavyweight division? While Gibbons, Tunney and Carpentier were fine fighters, it's not like boxers of their level weren't around during other later eras; yet they never made up such a big portion of the heavyweight division as during the early 20's.

On top of that, the entire black race had an additional problem of competing and trouble getting a title shot when one was well-earned. Wills saw his dream of being the heavyweight champion crushed by racism, although it may have been only one factor; Dempsey's management being an other. Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey also had their share of trouble from it, although Johnson could be blamed for them not getting a shot, too.
Gains and Godfrey didn't exactly have as glorious careers as they could've either, though again it's not entirely the fault of racism. But it undeniably surpressed the talent.

Firstly was it the deepest talent pool?

All we can say, is that in verry general terms the number of profesional fighters in continental America peaked in the 1920s which is not quite saying the same thing. Of course a deep talent pool dosnt necisarily mean that the best talents will come to the forefront.

While the heavyweight division of this period was not the greatest ever a good number of other divsions possibly were. The light heavyweight, middleweight, lightweight, and flyweight divisions of this period were absolutely outstanding.

I wouldnt say that the heavyweight division had to be bad. You had Jack Dempsey and Harry Wills active at the same time, who many people on this site rate as top 10-15 all time heavyweights. The strongest eras are often not the ones with the most talent but the ones where the big fights are made like the 70s.

You always get a few light heavyweights breaking into the top echelon of heavyweights even in strong eras. The fact of the colour line might have alowed some of them to get further than they other wise would have. Kid Norfolk had to fight Harry Wills for a shot at the title while Georges Carpintier didnt.

[Senya13]

It wasn't considered particularly strong or popular by contemporary writers and experts. On the contrary, as usual, it was considered weaker than the time before it.

[janitor]

It wasn't considered particularly strong or popular by contemporary writers and experts. On the contrary, as usual, it was considered weaker than the time before it.

This is a more than sweeping statment. You could hand pick contemporary writers handing out various impressions.

This was the era that saw million dollar gates for the first time

[Senya13]

I don't need to hand-pick, it's a general assessment from reading newspapers. Dempsey wasn't as popular as John L. Money isn't a measuring stick in this situation.

[janitor]

I don't need to hand-pick, it's a general assessment from reading newspapers. Dempsey wasn't as popular as John L. Money isn't a measuring stick in this situation.

Money = popularity

Now go ahead and hand pick.

[Senya13]

Using your criteria last year boxing's popularity was at it's peak with DLH-PBF.
Want to compare audience? Bareknuckle fights in England had 10-30 thousand of spectators on a regular basis, even relatively minor fights gathered thousands of spectators. You wouldn't get such numbers in 1910-1920's.

A curious story I read recently, dated 1899 I think (hardly an "unpopular" or little-talented epoch). Some little-known fighter quit in the 1st round, and explained his actions the following way (quoting the numbers by memory, so may be wrong, but the point remains) . The winner was to receive $35, the loser $15. Now this fighter had to give $15 to the manager, $10 to trainer, and $5 for other expenses, leaving him with only $5. Now, he says, why would I work very hard trying to win, for such little money? I'll better give in quickly and teach my manager and team a lesson to demand too much money from me.

[Mendoza]

I think boxing's peak popularity was the 1940's to 1970's.

[Adaptation]

I will give it to the 70's Heavyweight.

[Loewe]

Imo the 30s were the golden age of boxing. It had a great deep talent pool, was highly popular and the big matches were made. The time from the 40s to the 70s comes very close though.

[flamengo]

Senya13... can you please list one of the Prize fights which encountered such a large audience???? The 'special train' provided for the 'Heenan vs Sayers' bout of 1860, perhaps the biggest, and most spectacular fight in the history of the prize ring, catered for 'around a thousand people'... The vacinity of the Farnborough region was purely farmland, so its doubtlees that a crowd in excessof 200 locals made the jaunt to witness the bout... The well known fight between Tom Spring and Jack Langham, in which the stand collapsed was holding approx 2000 fans... I mean absolutely no disrespect towards you from these comments, as Im more intrigued as to the fights and crowds of that callibre.... Id rather stand to be corrected than be an ignoramous.. Cheers.

[Senya13]

These are only estimations, of course.

Several random picks of minor fights from Sporting Magazine:

January 1796:
BOXING.
Jan 5.
The boxing match fought on Wimbledon-common, on Tuesday, ended in favour of the Irishman, after twenty-eight severe rounds, in which there was no fall without a knockdown blow. The contest lasted forty-four minutes. Colonel Glover and Sir Thomas Apreece were amongst the spectators, who were not less than five thousand.


November 1797 - Chronological history of boxing
THE winter of 1760, was rendered memo-rable in the Boxing Calendar, by a battle fought in the month of February.
It was decided in the hollow called Marybone Bason, (a place as commodious for battleing as the ancient Roman Amphitheare) between Wm. Stevens, a nailer, and Jacob Taplin, a coal-heaver. In the center of the Bason, which held above three thousand spectators, a ring was formed, and the champions commenced, to the satisfaction of the eager crowd.


April 1798 - Chronological history of boxing
1790
March 24, the match between Crabbe the Jew, and Tyne the taylor, was fought in a field adjoining to Horton Moor. At least two thousand persons were present.


Some major fights.

Second fight between Cribb-Molinaeux had about 20 thousands present.
July 17, 1820 Oliver-Painter had at least 20 thousands persons on the ground.
December 11, 1821 Neat-Hickman, Egan estimated them at 30 thousands.
July 19, 1824 Ward-Cannon, about 12 thousands (it was extremely hot, 91 degrees in the shade).
Bendigo-Deaf Burke - not less than 15 thousands.

After late 1820's interest to pugilism started to decrease, and so did the attendance, reducing to several thousands at best.

[TBooze]

Boxing almost died in the USA in 1910's. Boxing really struggled in Britain post 1870's though to the 1920's. Australia had their golden era in the early 1900's, but again the sport almost died in the 1910's.

The boom of the 20's helped the sport in the USA and Britain, and the depression also helped the sport in the States, where attendance wise it probably was at its strongest in the USA.

The 50s and TV led to the American golden age, boxing in Britain peaked in the late 80s/early 90s.

[ChrisPontius]

These are only estimations, of course.

Some major fights.

Second fight between Cribb-Molinaeux had about 20 thousands present.
July 17, 1820 Oliver-Painter had at least 20 thousands persons on the ground.
December 11, 1821 Neat-Hickman, Egan estimated them at 30 thousands.
July 19, 1824 Ward-Cannon, about 12 thousands (it was extremely hot, 91 degrees in the shade).
Bendigo-Deaf Burke - not less than 15 thousands.

After late 1820's interest to pugilism started to decrease, and so did the attendance, reducing to several thousands at best.

What is your source on those?


If you consider how small the density of the population was back then, combined with the fact that the fastest way to travel probably was by horse, i find numbers over ten thousand very hard to phantom.

A few thousand sounds, as the reports you posted say, sounds more on the mark to me.


It really must have sucked being a boxing fan back then. Even if you were lucky enough to be able to go to a big fight, it would more be a "i was there" than "i actually saw something of the fight" experience, with no tv screens, slow motion replays or any of that.

[ChrisPontius]

I think boxing's peak popularity was the 1940's to 1970's.

I agree.

[TBooze]

It really must have sucked being a boxing fan back then. Even if you were lucky enough to be able to go to a big fight, it would more be a "i was there" than "i actually saw something of the fight" experience, with no tv screens, slow motion replays or any of that.

I would say little has changed really.

For example; yes you can see Marvin Hagler KO3 Tommy Hearns written down, you can even watch a film of the fight, but you will never get back the amazing buzz of the bout.

The electricity surrounding the seemingly unbeatable Hagler and yet watching Hearns destroy Duran, how could Marvin win? But the hype was so big, surely the fight would flop? And yet when the bell rang for the first round, the fight exceeded all expectations.

But you do not get that same feeling by watching the fight 23 years on....

[flamengo]

senya13... thanks for the response. I enjoy any banter in refererance to pre-'queensberry rules'. Cheers.

[Senya13]

Fights For the Championship and Celebrated Prize Battles - or Accounts of All the Prize Battles for the Championship from the Days of Figg and broughton to the Present Day; and Also of Many Other Game and Extraordinary Battles Between First-Rate Pugilists of Ancient and Modern Times
Author: Dowling, Frank Lewis
Publisher: Bell's Life*(1855)

The book is basically a compilation (re-print) of primary sources.

You can look them up in Pugilistica if you want, links to first 2 volumes is in bare-knuckle thread.

[ChrisPontius]

I would say little has changed really.

For example; yes you can see Marvin Hagler KO3 Tommy Hearns written down, you can even watch a film of the fight, but you will never get back the amazing buzz of the bout.

The electricity surrounding the seemingly unbeatable Hagler and yet watching Hearns destroy Duran, how could Marvin win? But the hype was so big, surely the fight would flop? And yet when the bell rang for the first round, the fight exceeded all expectations.

But you do not get that same feeling by watching the fight 23 years on....

I wasn't talking about the fight from a "what would happen next" point of view, but from the fact that we can actually physically SEE the fights up to every detail and not forever miss the knockout for blinking our eyes. Even from ringside, you see considerably less than on TV, which is one of the reasons why judging has always been so bad.

[ChrisPontius]

Fights For the Championship and Celebrated Prize Battles - or Accounts of All the Prize Battles for the Championship from the Days of Figg and broughton to the Present Day; and Also of Many Other Game and Extraordinary Battles Between First-Rate Pugilists of Ancient and Modern Times
Author: Dowling, Frank Lewis
Publisher: Bell's Life*(1855)

The book is basically a compilation (re-print) of primary sources.

You can look them up in Pugilistica if you want, links to first 2 volumes is in bare-knuckle thread.

Could you provide quotes on the numbers you listed earlier?

[Senya13]

Cribb - Molineaux II

p. 46.
This match created, if possible, more interest than that which had preceded it, and for 20 miles round the scene of action not a bed was to be obtained for love or money the previous night, unless bespoken days before-hand. By 6 o'clock in the morning hundreds were astir in order to get good places near the stage which had been erected, and by the time the men arrived there were about 20,000 persons present, including many Corinthians of the highest rank.


Oliver - Painter

p. 60
So great was the curiosity excited by the affair, that hundreds of persons left London on purpose to witness it ; and a journey to Norwich in those days was no joke. To give some idea of the appearance of the road, we may mention that at least 1,200 vehicles passed over Cottishall Bridge, on the way to the scene of action. Oliver entered the ring about a quarter before one o'clock, attended by Tom Cribb and Tom Belcher, and was followed at no very long interval by Painter, who was esquired by Tom Spring and Paul. At the time the battle commenced, there were, it was estimated, at least 20,000 persons on the ground.

[Senya13]

I may be a bit off about my post-1820 remark, I think. I had a general feeling that even championship fights attracted only several thousands, but it seems that's not quite so. Many fights were attended only by relatively small number of "selected" persons so as to avoid the fight being detected by the magistrates.

Browsing through 3rd volume of Pugilistica...

1839-02-12 Bendigo vs Burke
p. 17.
"It was nearly half-past twelve before the actual arrival of Bendigo was made known, and at that time, upon a moderate calculation, there were not less than 15,000 persons present of all degrees, the aristocracy forming no inconsiderable portion."

1845-09-09 Bendigo vs Caunt
p. 28.
"At half-past two a second ring was formed, when there were at least 10,000 persons present."

[flamengo]

... the wording creates an amazing atmosphere, as it may well have been.. I now take your initial comments as being a 'gospel' report and thank you sincerely for creating some interest regarding this topic. As I type this post, in my hands i hold (in between typing) an original News paper , "Illustrated Times" April 21, 1860 in refereance to Heenan/Sayers... I would be pleased to copy/post this item to you??? The original I shall hold on to. Any particular phrases, observations or descriptions of the fight as penned that may interest you, I will happily list on this site.... the entire fight description if requested..??

[Senya13]

I have the Bell's Life account of Heenan-Sayers, which was re-printed in Pugilistica, as well as Miles' own comments on the infamous event of cut ropes, The (London) Times' report, re-printed in some newspapers, Wilkes' Times report re-printed in NY Herald, series of articles in Famous Fights Past & Present with lots of insights and quotes from people who were involved in making that fight or attended it (Harry Furniss, the publisher of Famous Fights, attended the fight, and was friendly with Sayers' manager and with Bell's Life editor, so he acquired their recollections about it in private talks or in mail). Allan Lloyd's book on that fight, of course. A hundreds of clippings from US newspapers at the time.
But the more the better, I guess. Based on the name of the newspaper, it must contain drawings, no? It's quite fascinating looking through some illustrated newspapers and magazines from that time, makes it easier to visualize things and life as it had been back then, buildings, fashion, etc.

[flamengo]

Senya13, the back to back pages of the fight details offer 2 illustrations, 1 of each fighter, although the text is a completely fascinating throw back to the romanticising views that journalists offer to any particular topic in the English text... I will offer some quotes..

"The scene gradually became one of the most intense and brutal excitement. There were shouts to Heenan to keep his antagonist in the sun, to close with him ad smash him, as he had only one arm, whilst the friends of Sayers called to him to take his time..."

What a great insight into the mind set of the time.. Poor Tom had an arm which had been renderred useless, yet, his fans are requesting he 'takes his time'.. The mental images are free to ones self, and its very easy to cunjure up some interesting veiws..

[Senya13]

So there are only two images?
They were absolutely correct urging him to take his time, he wasn't much hurt or exhausted other than broken arm, while Heenan had one eye closed already and the other closed completely several minutes after the termination of the fight, so if not for interference of the police, Sayers would most probably be the winner, against his blind opponent.

[flamengo]

senja13, Im pleased to have engaged in text conversation... I believe that Sayers may have been fortunate to have not been "strangled" in the 38th round, as mentioned in the paper, as Heenan held Sayers head over the ropes until his face had turned black. Fortunately the rules appropriated the allowance for 'both referees' to cut the rope..

[TBooze]

I wasn't talking about the fight from a "what would happen next" point of view, but from the fact that we can actually physically SEE the fights up to every detail and not forever miss the knockout for blinking our eyes. Even from ringside, you see considerably less than on TV, which is one of the reasons why judging has always been so bad.


But that is the problem, hindsight is always abused, I think it better just to either see the bout live or read accounts that are not tainted with hindsight; then you get a true opinion not polluted by others biases.

[Senya13]

Just wanted to ask you look it up, but you mentioned it before I asked. There's a disagreement in sources about what round the ropes were cut in. Bell's Life reported 37th round when it happened and 5 more rounds. While Wilkes' Spirit of the Times and London Times reported it happened in the 38th round and 4 more rounds were fought.

Rule 28 of the Ring Code was put into effect before Sayers-Heenan fight (in 1853) and reads as follows:

28. Where a man shall have his antagonist across the ropes in such a position as to be helpless, and to endanger his life by strangulation or apoplexy, it shall be in the power of the referee to direct the seconds to take their man away, and thus conclude the round ; and that the man or his seconds refusing to obey the direction of the referee shall be deemed the loser.

The articles specified the battle to be under the new rules, as quoted above. So the referee would have finished the round anyhow there and then if it weren't for interference of the police. While cutting the ropes was against the rules, but it had the same result as was dictated by the rules. It was never determined who cut the ropes, exactly, and Heenan would have won the battle only if it had been Sayers' supporters who had done this, but this was never known, so...

[OLD FOGEY]

Using your criteria last year boxing's popularity was at it's peak with DLH-PBF.
Want to compare audience? Bareknuckle fights in England had 10-30 thousand of spectators on a regular basis, even relatively minor fights gathered thousands of spectators. You wouldn't get such numbers in 1910-1920's.

A curious story I read recently, dated 1899 I think (hardly an "unpopular" or little-talented epoch). Some little-known fighter quit in the 1st round, and explained his actions the following way (quoting the numbers by memory, so may be wrong, but the point remains) . The winner was to receive $35, the loser $15. Now this fighter had to give $15 to the manager, $10 to trainer, and $5 for other expenses, leaving him with only $5. Now, he says, why would I work very hard trying to win, for such little money? I'll better give in quickly and teach my manager and team a lesson to demand too much money from me.

"Want to compare audience. Bareknuckle fights in England had 10-30 thousand of spectators on a regular basis, even relatively minor fights gathered thousands of spectators. You wouldn't get such numbers in 1910-1920's."

I don't really understand this. Attendences of 30,000 were reached in bareknuckle fights in England (remarkable under the conditions of the era) but such numbers were far surpassed in the 1920's.

Official attendences of selected 1920's bouts taken from Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia 1976:

Dempsey-Tunney 1927---105,000
Dempsey-Tunney 1926---120,000
Dempsey-Carpentier 1921---80,000
Dempsey-Firpo 1923---82,000
Dempsey-Sharkey 1927---75,000
Firpo-Wills 1924---70,000
Firpo-Williard 1923---80,000
Schmeling-Uzcudun 1929---65,000

And below heavyweight

Leonard-Tendler 1923---58,000
Greb-Walker 1925---40,000
Leonard-Tendler 1922---54,000
Berlenbach-Stribling 1926---55,000
Berlenbach-Delaney 1926---49,000
Greb-Moore 1924---45,000
Walker-Shade 1925---32,000
Dundee-Criqui 1923---33,000
Herman-Lynch 1921---30,000

Some other attendences prior to 1976

Louis-Baer 1935---88,000
Louis-Schmeling 1938---70,000
Robinson-Turpin 1951---61,000
Marciano-Moore 1955---61,000

[Senya13]

Which minor fights between third-raters, and who were not on the undercard of big fights, attracted thousands of spectators in 1910-1920's?

[OLD FOGEY]

Which minor fights between third-raters, and who were not on the undercard of big fights, attracted thousands of spectators in 1910-1920's?

Why should huge crowds gather for "minor" fights when they are so many "major" fights? Give an example of the sort of minor fight from the bareknuckle era you are talking about. If it drew crowds similar to the crowds for, let's say, Cribb-Molyneaux or Sayers-Heenan, why? One would certainly expect major fights to draw greater crowds in any era. Perhaps these minor fights you speak of were not viewed as minor at the time.

[Senya13]

I quoted several minor fights and their attendance in one of my posts in this thread. Why do you need more examples? I'm not even talking about chances to gather such huge crowds as you listed in conditions English people had to go through to attend the fights. Tex Rickard declined Goldfield's $200K offer for Johnson-Jeffries in favour of Reno's $120K because he was afraid that fewer people (one or two thousands less) would agree to additional 12 hours to travel to Goldfield, through the heat and the railroads not as developed in Goldfield as in Reno.

[OLD FOGEY]

I quoted several minor fights and their attendance in one of my posts in this thread. Why do you need more examples? I'm not even talking about chances to gather such huge crowds as you listed in conditions English people had to go through to attend the fights. Tex Rickard declined Goldfield's $200K offer for Johnson-Jeffries in favour of Reno's $120K because he was afraid that fewer people (one or two thousands less) would agree to additional 12 hours to travel to Goldfield, through the heat and the railroads not as developed in Goldfield as in Reno.

Most of the fights you quoted featured men I am familiar with and I'm no historian of the bareknuckle era. Specifically, whom do you consider minor? They may have been very well known fighters in that era at their weights.

The major fights of the 1920's drew as much as four times more patrons as the major fights of the bareknuckle era. There was intense interest in the bareknuckle era, remarkable considering the lack of modern mass communication, but I am just probing for why you consider the evidence convincing that there was more interest than in the 1920's when you had up to 120,000 at big fights.

[ChrisPontius]

"Want to compare audience. Bareknuckle fights in England had 10-30 thousand of spectators on a regular basis, even relatively minor fights gathered thousands of spectators. You wouldn't get such numbers in 1910-1920's."

I don't really understand this. Attendences of 30,000 were reached in bareknuckle fights in England (remarkable under the conditions of the era) but such numbers were far surpassed in the 1920's.

Official attendences of selected 1920's bouts taken from Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia 1976:

Dempsey-Tunney 1927---105,000
Dempsey-Tunney 1926---120,000
Dempsey-Carpentier 1921---80,000
Dempsey-Firpo 1923---82,000
Dempsey-Sharkey 1927---75,000
Firpo-Wills 1924---70,000
Firpo-Williard 1923---80,000
Schmeling-Uzcudun 1929---65,000

And below heavyweight

Leonard-Tendler 1923---58,000
Greb-Walker 1925---40,000
Leonard-Tendler 1922---54,000
Berlenbach-Stribling 1926---55,000
Berlenbach-Delaney 1926---49,000
Greb-Moore 1924---45,000
Walker-Shade 1925---32,000
Dundee-Criqui 1923---33,000
Herman-Lynch 1921---30,000

Some other attendences prior to 1976

Louis-Baer 1935---88,000
Louis-Schmeling 1938---70,000
Robinson-Turpin 1951---61,000
Marciano-Moore 1955---61,000

Somewhat declining numbers from the 50's and on could be attributed to the fights being broadcast on TV or in theaters, whereas before that, it was either go to the fight, or never see it at all.

[Senya13]

You certainly don't know who one "Irishman" (without a name) was. You may have heard William Steven's name, but I doubt you have ever heard of Jacob Taplin, Crabbe the Jew or Tyne the taylor.

What was the attendance of the 40,000 arena built for Dempsey-Gibbons?

[Senya13]

From New Series of Boxiana, volume II:

1822-11-05 Barlow vs Tootle
"Upwards of two thousand persons mustered upon this occasion".

1826-07-25 Jem Burn vs Magee
"But the Races at Derby and Knutsford, and the Nottingham Cricket Match, might have operated as great drawbacks to the spectators at the fight. Nevertheless, it is supposed not less than six thousand persons were present."

1828-04-08 Philip Sampson vs Thomas Brown
"The number of spectators could not have been less than 25,000--some persons guessed their numbers at 40,000--of these, at least 15,000 were unable to see the 24-feet ring, and were consequently continually pressing forward."

1825-10-10 Boscoe vs M'Gee
"At least eight thousand persons were present, although the thing was kept snug."

1825-08-09 Gilmore vs Bill Hall
"and the number of spectators, about two thousand".

1822-03-26 Pat Halton vs Johnson
"in a glen between two hills, which afforded an excellent view of every thing wished to be seen, near Scanlara's. The spectators did not fall short of fifty thousand."

[OLD FOGEY]

You certainly don't know who one "Irishman" (without a name) was. You may have heard William Steven's name, but I doubt you have ever heard of Jacob Taplin, Crabbe the Jew or Tyne the taylor.

What was the attendance of the 40,000 arena built for Dempsey-Gibbons?

Stevens was actually a champion. I have never heard of Taplin or Crabbe the Jew, but Taplin must have been somebody to have been matched with Stevens. Tom Tyne twice defeated former champion George Meggs and later lost to Daniel Mendoza. If that is who they are referring to, he was not obscure.

They drew 8,000 for Dempsey-Gibbons, but have you been to Montana today let alone back in 1923? I wonder if the population of the whole state was more than 50,000 back then. Once you hit the Dakotas you can drive for miles and miles without seeing anything more than a coyote. It was quite a trip for anyone to get out to where Gibbons and Dempsey were fighting. No wonder it flopped. It is something like holding the Klitschko-Peter fight on Wrangel Island.

By the way, within a week of the flop at Shelby, Willard-Firpo drew 80,000 paid with an extra 20,000 gatecrashers at Boyle's Thirty Acres.

Your point, though, that the attendences at some of the bareknuckle fights is amazing considering the travel conditions of the time and bespeaks a great intensity of interest is well taken.

[Senya13]

Yes, Stevens was a claimant of the title. But he upset Slack only after the fight I quoted, he was a complete unknown before his match with the champion. So Taplin was unknown also.
Tyne met Meggs some 25 years after the latter had lost his title in first defense, Stevens and Meggs were part of epoch everyone forgot about quickly, so ugly and poor it was because of fixed fights. But glad to see that you have heard about Tyne, I'd guess maybe 1 non-historian out of 100 boxing fans will recall his name and who he fought without googling his name.

I heard of 7 thousands attendance. Montana had been part of boxing geography for over two decades by then, although mostly concentrating near Butte. Not the most popular state, but certainly not devoid of boxing events either.

[janitor]

[quote=Senya13]
Want to compare audience? Bareknuckle fights in England had 10-30 thousand of spectators on a regular basis, even relatively minor fights gathered thousands of spectators. You wouldn't get such numbers in 1910-1920's.
[quote]

Since you bring the matter up, the following of boxing per head of population probably was higher in Britain of the early 1800s than in any other society in history.

The Cibb Molineux fights received greater coverage in the contemporary press than the Battle of Trafalgar.

[janitor]

I don't need to hand-pick, it's a general assessment from reading newspapers. Dempsey wasn't as popular as John L. Money isn't a measuring stick in this situation.

There are two seperate issues being discussed here.

The following of boxing and the depth of the talent pool.

A big public following dose not guarantee a deep talent pool.

what the 1920s had pleanty of was active profesional fighters and scheduled boxing matches.

[Senya13]

So had the previous three decades. At the turn of the century Philadelphia sometimes had 4 or 5 boxing shows on the same night, New York City had 3-4. Anyway, what I'm saying is I see no reason to single out 1910's or 1920's over other decades.

[Minotauro]

I feel the 40's were boxing prime the talent pool was so deep and there were stars in every division.

[OLD FOGEY]

So had the previous three decades. At the turn of the century Philadelphia sometimes had 4 or 5 boxing shows on the same night, New York City had 3-4. Anyway, what I'm saying is I see no reason to single out 1910's or 1920's over other decades.


Except that attendences at major bouts were off the chart compared to earlier decades. Sullivan-Corbett fought before less than 5,000 fans. Johnson-Jeffries before less than 20,000 (about 15,700 paid). That is nowhere near what the major bouts of the twenties drew.

The largest gate prior to 1919 was $270,000 for Johnson-Jeffries. The live gate for Dempsey-Carpentier was considered almost beyond belief.

By the way, boxing clearly DID NOT draw anywhere near the largest crowds of the turn of the century era. Dan Patch paced before 93,000 fans at the Minnesota state fair in 1906.