Talk:Young Dutch Sam

Anachronistic reference to welterweight championship

In the lead paragraph it states that Young Dutch Sam 'was considered a bare-knuckle welterweight champion of England during his career'. Given that there are no references to Welterweight as a category until the late 19th century, many decades after Sam retired, this is clearly anachronistic. Also, given that no weight based categories existed while Sam was fighting, he would not have been considered a champion of a weight category. The more appropriate description would be that he 'was considered one of the best fighters at his weight during his career'. Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple changes to details in the article

A really good well-sourced article but I’ve made quite a few alterations to clear up a few points…

As per the note above, I’ve removed several anachronistic references to weight-related titles in this article, At the time that Young Dutch Sam was fighting these titles did not exist. If he was fighting today he would be considered a welterweight, but that description wasn't used in boxing until 1896 at the earliest (see the Wikipedia page on ‘welterweight’) long after Young Dutch Sam had died. During his career he was considered a lightweight, which was an informal description rather than a specific weight-based classification.

To illustrate the issue re: the mention of weight-based titles, some of the text here used to read as follows: ‘[Sam] cemented his informal title of English or World bareknuckle welterweight champion, though no sanctioning bodies at the time could officially bestow this title.’

Clearly this whole sentence is incorrect. A fighter cannot hold an informal title in a weight classification which didn't exist until long after he had died (especially a title using a term - welterweight - which no one would use in a boxing connection for another 60 years). Also, no sanctioning bodies existed in those days, so there is no question of whether or not they were able to officially bestow a title. Young Dutch Sam was the best fighter at his weight during his career, but he was not accepted at the time as being a champion of a weight-based category – and really that is the only relevant criteria. From the sections on Young Dutch Sam in authoritative sources like Boxiana and Pugilistica this is all quite clear.

Also removed reference to Young Dutch Sam’s father (Dutch Sam) having been a champion, which is incorrect for the same reason.

I’ve also removed references to the websites IBHOF and Boxrec, which are the usual sources of these anachronistic claims. I’ve replaced them with references to the original fight reports in Pugilistica (the 60 pages on Young Dutch Sam in that encyclopaedic 3 volume set are surely the definitive account of Sam’s life and career - and are freely accessible on archive.org).

I’ve altered (hopefully) all of the many instances in the article where Young Dutch Sam was referred to as ‘Young Dutch’. The contemporary sources make it clear that he was referred to either as ‘Young Dutch Sam’ or simply as ‘Sam’, not as 'Young Dutch'. Presumably the frequent use of the name ‘Young Dutch’ in the article relates to the American nickname ‘Dutch’, used for example in the name of gangster Dutch Schultz, but the use of ‘Dutch’ as a nickname was not current in England at this time (and in fact it has never been used here to the best of my knowledge). So, the correct shortening of Young Dutch Sam is ‘Sam’, rather than ‘Young Dutch’.

Removed reference in the lead paragraph to Sam having fought ‘during [boxing’s] “Pioneer era” (pre-1892)’. Reference to the ‘pioneer era’ is just IBHOF jargon. It is surely sufficient just to say (as the article already does in the previous sentence) that Sam was a bareknuckle boxer with birth and death dates in the first half of the 19th century.

Changed the title of Pierce Egan’s journal from ‘Pierce Egan’s Life’ to ‘Pierce Egan’s Life in London’. (see Wikipedia page on Pierce Egan for confirmation that this is the correct name)

I’ve also removed the statement that ‘Old five was a racquet sport during the period’. This occurs in relation to reference to the location known as the Old Fives Court. This was an ‘old’ location where the handball sport ‘fives’ was played (see Wikipedia page on Fives). However, this is hardly relevant to the subject of Young Dutch Sam. The Old Fives Court was a regular location for exhibition fighting at this time.

Also removed reference to Maidenhead being 50 miles southeast of London, it is actually about 25 miles WEST of London, but I’ve added a text link to the Maidenhead Wikipedia page (and to various of the other locations of Young Dutch Sam’s fights). I’ve removed regular reference to them all having taken place in ‘Maidenhead, England’, ‘Ascot, England’, ‘Ludlow, England’ etc. Sam was an English fighter who, as was usual at the time, spent his entire career fighting in England, there is no need to re-iterate the point in every fight.

The text used to say that ‘According to one source the prize for the [Sam vs Jack Cooper] match was a sizable £50’. TWO references are then cited at the end of the sentence. To the best of my knowledge ALL sources agree that the purse for this fight was £50, so there would seem to be no doubt on this issue. I've therefore changed the text to say simply ‘The purse for this fight was £50’.

The text in the Sam vs Neale fight says that the ‘Morning Chronicle wrote that Young Dutch had never been defeated’. Since it is well known that Sam never lost a fight, and the text of the article up to this point demonstrates that record, surely this comment is redundant. I have therefore removed it.

Similarly, near the end of the article it says ‘Most surviving records show Young Dutch winning all his fights, but according to Charles Knight, a contemporary, he recounted a match in which he saw Young Dutch Sam fall across the ropes with a broken arm.’ Realistically, all of the surviving contemporary and near-contemporary records indicate that Sam won all his fights (e.g Boxiana, Fistiana, Pugilistica, etc.). Even if Sam had ‘fall[en] across the ropes with a broken arm’ that wouldn’t constitute a loss anyway, as boxers at this time often fought on with one usable arm. Unsurprisingly the quote above derives from an IBHOF source. I have removed it because there can be no real doubt that Young Dutch Sam won all of his bouts. (If he had lost any, how could all contemporary boxing chroniclers have missed the fact, given that Sam’s fights were regularly watched by very large crowds?)

Removed reference to Ratcliffe Highway being ‘known for robberies […] most notably around 1810’. It was a rough part of London, well known for vice and crime, and, as with all such places in London (and elsewhere) it would have been the regular site of robberies throughout the entire 19th century (and earlier).

Removed reference to which road the entrance to Kensal Green cemetery is located on, as clearly this is not a relevant detail to the encyclopaedia page about a boxer. There is a text link to the cemetery anyway.

Also removed the extensive text in relation to the adoption of the London Prize Ring rules, which is a matter that relates to an Owen Swift fight at which Young Dutch Sam was only present because he was fighting in an earlier bout on the same bill (if we mean the Noon fight) or as a second (if we mean the Phelps fight). Really the description here of the Swift-Noon fight and the adoption of the London Prize Ring rules belongs in the article on Owen Swift (where indeed it is covered briefly) or, perhaps with even greater relevance, on the Wikipedia page for the London Prize Ring Rules (where sadly it is not).

The text here used to read as below (in case anyone fancies moving it to either of those pages). However, it does seem to involve some errors, as some of the infractions listed were certainly considered to be fouls long prior to 1838, and 'around 38 seconds' should surely say '30 seconds':

'Adoption of London Prize Ring rules. After the death of Brighton Bill in 1838, which had been preceded by the death of two other of Swift's opponents, a major revision in the rules of boxing was eventually made. The London Prize Ring Rules were introduced by the Pugilists’ Protective Association and replaced Broughton's rules of 1743. There were 29 rules, built on Broughton's rules, but with more depth and detail. These rules more clearly defined the range of fouls and introduced certain safety measures, making head butting, gouging, hitting below the belt, and hitting a man when he was down fouls. London Prize Ring rules allowed only around 38 seconds of rest at the end of a round, however, considerably less than the two minute break given to modern fighters under Marquess of Queensbury Rules.’

In the list of Sam’s fights at the foot of the article I’ve removed the comment attached to 'Sam vs Gaynor' that that fight ‘Led to the adoption of the London Prize Ring Rules, 1838’. That comment relates to Swift vs Noon, which was fought on the same day (although the fight that was really finally responsible for those rules’ adoption is actually Swift vs Phelps 1838).

A final point… throughout the article there is repeated reference to the impressive size of the stakes (i.e. bets) in Sam’s fights. I’d suggest though that stakes of £25 a side, £30 a side and £50 a side were not actually that great and genuinely significant stakes in the 1820s/30s would be more like £100 a side (for which sums Sam did indeed fight later in his career). Axad12 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)