Unlikely Champions: Mike McTigue

Having won the light heavyweight world title from Georges Carpentier in 1922 in what may well have been a well placed trap, Battling Siki would lose the title in his first defence by possibly falling into one himself. The beneficiary was, at the time, the rather unheralded Irishman Mike McTigue.

McTigue was into his 30s at the time he received his title shot, in rather strange circumstances it must be said. He had basically had a long career fighting along the East Coast U.S.A and up in Canada but had faced opposition of varying calibre and had rarely risen above what could be considered journeyman status for a fighter back then. Having seemingly exhausted his career on the far side of the Atlantic, McTigue had decided to return to his native Ireland and start doing the rounds on the U.K boxing circuit when his title shot arrived.

A bit of background helps explain to some extent the position Siki was in. He won the title but was still a relatively unhead of boxer with no reputation in the U.S. His boxing licence had been temporarily suspended in France due to his corners part in the fracas after the bout with Carpentier. The U.K was reluctant at this time to sanction mixed race bouts so his options there were limited. Siki had no real recognition in the U.S and quite possibly his own handlers realised that he was probably unlikely to go far there whilst hanging on to his title. Ireland at the time had just ceded from the U.K and while boxing was not really a big sport at the time there, a fight with a "third rate fighter" as one paper described McTigue, on St Patricks Day in Dublin seemed a financially plausible option.

In retrospect, one might question the wisdom of fighting an Irishman in his own backyard on St Patricks Day, third rate fighter or not. To add to complications, Ireland was actually in the midst of Civil War with half of the population accepting the treaty offered by Britain which fell one step short of full independance and partitioned the Island into the North and South. The other half of the population wanted nothing short of full independance for the entire Island. Civil War ensued. So security measures for the fight were costly and cumbersome. The stage was set but from Sikis perspective it was hardly ideal.

With all this in mind its not surprising the bout was shrouded in controversy with numerous theories on what really happened. This apparently was to be last ever championship bout scheduled for 20 rounds, and one thing almost everyone agreed on was that it was hardly a fight to remember. The headline in the Irish Newspaper the next day read "McTigue wins on points: A Disappointing Fight". The nature of the bout, and its outcome led many to believe the whole thing was a set up and/or Siki had been robbed.

Some people believed that Sikis handlers were probably not as stupid, or brave, as they may have appeared and that travelling to Ireland to fight McTigue had actually been a prearranged bout designed to make all parties a bit of money before Siki went to the U.S to try his luck. In a case of what goes around comes around, McTigue had agreed to set up but come fight night had no intention of laying down. And with the ref and crowd on his side anything other than a Siki KO would have resulted in the title changing hands. This theory has alot of merit. As stated above, fighting McTigue on Irelands national holiday in his own back yard, in a country split by civil war strikes one as odd. It would seem reasonable that Siki had insurance if he was going to carry through with this.

Another theory is that the bout was not particularly designed as a fix, but that Siki was the victim of a hometown decision and that McTigue and his team had made absolutely sure that unless Siki knocked him out the ref was going to award him the bout. This is another possibility. But while many people claimed Siki had been robbed, actual footage of the fight aswell as some old reports turned up in Dublin years after and they would seem to present a bout that was largely lacklustre but capable of going either way. And given McTigue was the home fighter not altogether surprising he got the nod.

The lacklustre nature of the bout coupled with both fighters apparent lack of enthusiasm to win leads to yet another theory. That both parties had thought that they had the fight in the bag. Siki thought he had a deal with McTigue that he would retain his title, while McTigue was under the impression that if the bout went the distance he would get the nod. Thus both fighters engaged in a rather tepid bout involving plenty of holding and very little action.

There doesnt seem to be any real way of knowing for sure, but the en result is that there was a new unlikely light heavyweight champion crowned. Journeyman turned champion Mike McTigue. For Siki this was the end of his brief spell at the top. He went to try his fortunes in America with little success and wound up being killed a few years later. McTigue also went back to America as champion. But having possibly won his title by dubious means he was determined not to lose it making the same mistake. He would bring his own referee with him to fights and took full advantage of the no decision rule allowing him to retain his title unless actually knocked out. Losing by newspaper decision wasnt really a problem for him. One example is having defended his title against Young Stribling, his hand picked referee dutifully declared the bout a draw. Incensed, Striblings manager threatened the referee at gun point at which stage the referee hastily changed his mind and gave the bout to Stribling, and with it the title. However, possibly finding himself at gun point again - this time by McTigues men, he signed a statement acknowledging his original decision and McTigue retained his title. Interestingly, despite being world light heavyweight champion, the Ring magazine saw fit only to rank him as the fourth or fifth best light heavyweight in their initial publication of rankings. This was almost unique and would seem to suggest that McTigue was very much seen as someone who was hanging onto his title rather than the best in the division. However after losing another newspaper decision to Mickey Walker (but retaining his title) McTigue eventually was forced to defend it under championship terms which saw him lose his title to Paul Berlenbach. Despite this, McTigue would continue to enjoy high profile bouts (seldom winning any) over the next 5/6 years and the once boxing rounder ended up making alot of money from the sport. Unfortunately for McTigue the Wall Street crash would wipe out much of his savings and he was forced to continue to fight long past his best. He ended up being diagnosed with Pugilistic Dementia and died in 1966. However his story remains as one of a very unlikely champion who some would say used any and all means as well as a bit of well placed opportunism to become a world champion. Anyone else have any info or potential theories on his controversial bouts?

Again Manos, excellent stuff have just had a look at my book on Mctigue and they do suggest many of the ring side journalists suggest it was a controversial decision with many a journalist suggesting Siki had done enough, for what it is worth referee Jack Smith stated that whilst Siki was the aggresor he awarded Mctigue the decision because he was scoring on the retreat and doing the cleaner work, what little there was.

Am not sure I am convinced this was a fix per se, personally think it was just the lot of black fighters then, am drawn to the Johnson Hart fight where pretty much across the board Johnson was considered to have had the better of things, only for the ref to say he was scoring the fight on aggression, something Jack would never outdo Hart in. For me it was just a case in those days that in close fights refs would score on whatever criteria most disadvantaged the black fighter.

Good read. Thanks for all the effort

rowley wrote:Again Manos, excellent stuff have just had a look at my book on Mctigue and they do suggest many of the ring side journalists suggest it was a controversial decision with many a journalist suggesting Siki had done enough, for what it is worth referee Jack Smith stated that whilst Siki was the aggresor he awarded Mctigue the decision because he was scoring on the retreat and doing the cleaner work, what little there was.

Am not sure I am convinced this was a fix per se, personally think it was just the lot of black fighters then, am drawn to the Johnson Hart fight where pretty much across the board Johnson was considered to have had the better of things, only for the ref to say he was scoring the fight on aggression, something Jack would never outdo Hart in. For me it was just a case in those days that in close fights refs would score on whatever criteria most disadvantaged the black fighter.

Yes its entirely possible that the bout was on the level but McTigue simply got the nod. I suppose what makes it dubious is the high element of risk taken on by Siki and his team who were willing to engage in a bout against an Irishman in Ireland on St Patricks Day. Possible either very brave or very stupid notwithstanding the limited options open to Siki.

The reports of the fight I have read seem to suggest a pretty lacklustre bout with Siki having the better of the first half but McTigue doing the better late on. Another point of contention would be that Siki must surely have felt that in the circumstances of the bout he was unlikely to get a decision there so its somewhat surprising he was noted for being a bit lacklustre in his efforts as on the face of things the odds were stacked against him.

Given McTigue kind of dubious antics later on and how he seemed to exploit the system aswell as get the odd decision go his way that shouldnt have (Loughran, Stribling and Flowers all had cause to claim foul at various times) it wouldnt surprise me totally if he had a little extra help against Siki.

From memory there are American newspaper reports that say that McTigue deservedly won a poor fight.

There is also a good article on the fight and Siki's subsequent murder for alledgedly not throwing the Carpenter fight that is on one of the boxing sites.

McTigue was in the ring with some great LHW's in his career.

I'll have a look for the article at lunchtime if nobody posts it beforehand.

What a cracking article.

Very fine job again, Manos. McTigue is certainly an interesting case - I'm particularly glad that you managed to reference his fight with Stribling, too; one of the most riotous moments in boxing history, and a story which has fascinated me for a good while, too.

Nothing much more to add from me, apart from my compliments again, mate.

Excellent stuff, Manos. Perhaps one for the journal if not there already?

Think the biggest stitch up in Mctigues career could be his win over Tiger Flowers.

Here's the article on McTigue and Siki from The Sweet Science website. He looks at differenent opinions recorded on the fight.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/bernard-fernandez/6836-siki-and-mctigue-forever-linked-in-history



Also, Tracy Calis said the following in his profile of Siki on the Cyber Boxing Zone:

"Needless to say, Siki lost a 20 round decision and the title to Mc Tigue. Observers do state that McTigue deserved to win and was not the recipient of a hometown decision."

Superb article, and I wont insult the article in adding anything since I don't know a great deal about him, but thoroughly enjoyed the read, cheers pal.

Strongback wrote:Here's the article on McTigue and Siki from The Sweet Science website. He looks at differenent opinions recorded on the fight.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/columnists/bernard-fernandez/6836-siki-and-mctigue-forever-linked-in-history



Also, Tracy Calis said the following in his profile of Siki on the Cyber Boxing Zone:

"Needless to say, Siki lost a 20 round decision and the title to Mc Tigue. Observers do state that McTigue deserved to win and was not the recipient of a hometown decision."

There seem to be conflicting reports on the bout. Boxing hisotrians seem split on whether it was Sikis or McTigues. Footage of the film exists but only in edited form making it difficult to say, and while the footage that does exist appears to show McTigue having the better of it - the suspicion is that it was edited in order to appear this way. Many sources seem to agree Siki had the better of the first half of the bout. He had opened up a cut on McTigue and had a couple of big rounds at the start. But McTigue seemed the stronger in the second half of the fight (possible suggestion that Siki hadnt prepared to go a full 20 rounds). Some of the the claims of the robbery might also be down to the hastiness with which the referee awarded the bout to McTigue. As soon as the final bell went he had raised McTigues arm leading some to believe it was a foregone conclusion. But most reports do seem to suggest a bout that was closer than many beleived at the time. Either way its a very interesting fight with lots of various conspiracy theories and possibilities on what really happened.