Pernell Whitaker Or Bob Fitzsimmons Who Should Be Remembered As The Greater Fighter?

[cotto20]

Thought this one would be a interesting topic. Well, who in your opinion should be remembered as the greater fighter?

Fitzsimmons Accomplishments
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Whitakers Accomplishments
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

Apples and oranges though both of the highest degree in the broad spectrum of what we discuss as boxing. I see no need for differentiation. They fought under such different circumstances. I am not so sure Pernell would have flourished in the 1890's as did Bob or vice versa with Bob in the 1990's.

[cotto20]

Apples and oranges though both of the highest degree in the broad spectrum of what we discuss as boxing. I see no need for differentiation. They fought under such different circumstances. I am not so sure Pernell would have flourished in the 1890's as did Bob or vice versa with Bob in the 1990's.

I didn't suggest or mean how both would of fared in each others era. My question was who shall be remembered as the greater fighter. Who in your opinion should rank higher on a ATG list.

[cross_trainer]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Seamus]

I didn't suggest or mean how both would of fared in each others era. My question was who shall be remembered as the greater fighter. Who in your opinion should rank higher on a ATG list.

And again I say apples and oranges. There can be no single set of criteria when regarding two fighters from such different eras and circumstances. There is no linear list of 1 thru 100 greatest fighters, no matter how some on here would desire this sporting enterprise to be quantified. It's simply a ridiculous task. And no offense, but this is simply a ridiculous question.

[Sardu]

I will go with PW by a slight margin since I feel like he handed the legendary JC Chavez his first loss. Fitz had great success even in his forties which is amazing. Also, like many onn these boards, I think that Whitaker should have got the win against De La Hoya which would have made him the first man to do it. He also shut out Greg Haugen in a fight that many thought would be a pick em' type of deal going in. Nothing against Fitz but I think Whitaker gets the nod here. Fitz at about 170lbs. had remarkable success against men that often outweighed himself by 50lbs. and more. He was a legend but PM is even more of a legend. Both are ATG's though.

Edge - Whitaker

[Seamus]

The JC fight was a draw. Scoreboard. I had it scored for Pea by a round from about 13 rows up. Later scored it on tape about the same. He certainly won his rounds much more emphatically but nothing to grant a 10-8. The rounds I gave Chavez were definitely closer. In the 10 point must, though, it comes out looking the same.

Oscar clearly won that fight in my book. Of course Pea was going to make it ugly and he did. Still, Oscar took the rounds.

A lot of what Pea did in the ring fell under no criteria for point-scoring, not effective, not aggressive and not really even defensive, just show-boating asshat theatrics. I'm being hyper-critical here because he is an all-time great, top 25 in LB4LB in my book. However, he is given too much credit at times for the wrong things and not enough for some of the grit he showed.

[Sweet Pea]

At the moment I have Fitzsimmons rated a few spots higher. He's in the 10-15 range while Whitaker is in the top 20.

[Sweet Pea]

The JC fight was a draw. Scoreboard. I had it scored for Pea by a round from about 13 rows up. Later scored it on tape about the same. He certainly won his rounds much more emphatically but nothing to grant a 10-8. The rounds I gave Chavez were definitely closer. In the 10 point must, though, it comes out looking the same.

Oscar clearly won that fight in my book. Of course Pea was going to make it ugly and he did. Still, Oscar took the rounds.

A lot of what Pea did in the ring fell under no criteria for point-scoring, not effective, not aggressive and not really even defensive, just show-boating asshat theatrics. I'm being hyper-critical here because he is an all-time great, top 25 in LB4LB in my book. However, he is given too much credit at times for the wrong things and not enough for some of the grit he showed.I for one much preferred when he was (for the most part) all business rather than when he would resort to clowning. Brilliant all around technical boxer at his best.

[Seamus]

I for one much preferred when he was (for the most part) all business rather than when he would resort to clowning. Brilliant all around technical boxer at his best.

Yes. Amazing fighter. I actually think he didn't live up to his potential, which is scary to think about.

[cotto20]

At the moment I have Fitzsimmons rated a few spots higher. He's in the 10-15 range while Whitaker is in the top 20.

These are the type of answers I wanted......:good:happy

[Minotauro]

Fitz he has done what to this day nobody has done held linear titles from middle to heavy.

[Bill Butcher]

Yes. Amazing fighter. I actually think he didn't live up to his potential, which is scary to think about.

I think Whitaker DID show us everything he had, its just that at the time when he was on top, he wasnt really given the credit by dumbass fans that he should have got.... he`s getting it now but its annoying that some fighters dont get fully appreciated until they have long gone.

Of course the Chavez result didnt help, that victory being official on his record would have been better than unofficial, no doubt.

Also, guys like DLH & Trinidad would never have beaten him at 147 anywhere up until the 2nd McGirt fight... but they waited until he started slipping before having a go.

A DLH & Tito victory would have likely been enough to catapult him into any top 10 list... he already makes my top 10 but I dont consider boxers with 0 or poor footage. He was better than those guys regardless of the size difference & they knew it, believe that, Pernell was avoided by those guys until he was on the slide, not his fault IMO.

[PowerPuncher]

Clear example of boxing moving forward, boxing wasn't much of a sport then, the technique was prehistoric, Kelly Pavlik would be a boxing master and Heavyweight Champ in those days and Pavlik is obviously average today

Whitaker by FAR

[janitor]

Fizsimmons is the better fighter pound for pound and his career acomplishments are more impressive on paper.

[Seamus]

Put a gun to my head and I would have Pernell in the top 25, Fitz in the top 20. I still don't think a comparison such as this is apt. It's almost like judging footballer against a rugby player.

[essexboy]

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead but Fitzsimmons cant be blamed for being born in the wrong century, you can only rank him in accordance to how he performed in his own time. Personally I thought Whitaker beat Chavez easily, I think I gave Chavez two or three rounds, I had Whitaker-De la Hoya a draw which past prime was an amazing performance from Sweet Pea. Fitz was something else though, a phenomenon, he is one of the greatest middleweights ever and beat a great middleweight to get the title in Dempsey. To step up and take the lineal heavyweight title like he did is unlikely to ever be repeated. Possessed ridiculous punching power. I have Fitz around #11 ATG and Whitaker around #18. In dont rate fighters head to head or anything like that, thats an impossible exercise. Its more record and performance at numeous weights.

[cotto20]

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead but Fitzsimmons cant be blamed for being born in the wrong century, you can only rank him in accordance to how he performed in his own time. Personally I thought Whitaker beat Chavez easily, I think I gave Chavez two or three rounds, I had Whitaker-De la Hoya a draw which past prime was an amazing performance from Sweet Pea. Fitz was something else though, a phenomenon, he is one of the greatest middleweights ever and beat a great middleweight to get the title in Dempsey. To step up and take the lineal heavyweight title like he did is unlikely to ever be repeated. Possessed ridiculous punching power. I have Fitz around #11 ATG and Whitaker around #18. In dont rate fighters head to head or anything like that, thats an impossible exercise. Its more record and performance at numeous weights.

Yep. Peoples rating or critera shound't be based on how Fitzsimmons would fair in other era's or how he stacks up in fantasy fights.

He should be judged on what he accomplished and achieved in his own era of fighting. End of.......

[Seamus]

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead ...

I guess I don't understand your definition of ability. I would think it took quite some ability for a spindly middleweight to win three divisions up to heavyweight and give a monster like Jeffries such fits. As far as pure power punching ability, Fitzsimmons has few peers. I would say it is even more impressive than Whitaker's defensive acumen.

[essexboy]

I guess I don't understand your definition of ability. I would think it took quite some ability for a spindly middleweight to win three divisions up to heavyweight and give a monster like Jeffries such fits. As far as pure power punching ability, Fitzsimmons has few peers. I would say it is even more impressive than Whitaker's defensive acumen.

Im talking about how boxing has changed in the last hundred years. Obviously in his time he was extremely talented. I was sorta replying to PowerPuncher's post in an off-hand way.

[sweet_scientist]

I give Fitzsimmons the edge in terms of longevity (even though Whitaker boxed more rounds) and character, but Whitaker has the edge in terms of resume and dominance, which are more important categories for me, and hence why I have Whitaker higher.

[cotto20]

I give Fitzsimmons the edge in terms of longevity (even though Whitaker boxed more rounds) and character, but Whitaker has the edge in terms of resume and dominance, which are more important categories for me, and hence why I have Whitaker higher.

Interesting, how many places apart do you have them?

[sweet_scientist]

Interesting, how many places apart do you have them?

About 10.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Boilermaker]

About 10.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

That is an excellent list, and you have obviously put a lot of work into it. But,I have to ask the question, how do you justify Bob Fitzsimmons rankings?

You have listed his longevity as a 7. Fitzsimmons won the middleweight in 1891, and was the best middleweight in the world until the day he lost the world title in 1895. From this day forth he was the best light heavyweight and Heavyweight in the world. By 1903, he was still considered the second best heavyweight in the world (at the time of his loss to Jeffries) and later that year he was considered the best light heavyweight in the world. This puts him at the very top of the tree 12 years after becoming the best middleweight in the world. it wasnt until 2 years later when he lost the light heavy champ to another Jack o brien that he was dethroned as the no 1 light heavyweight. That makes him the no 1 pound for pound guys (or thereabouts) for nearly 15 years. And about 5 or so years later he was still giving the World Heavyweight title contender Bill Lang a decent fight. All this is not allowing for the years before he won the world middleweight title, where he beat everyone going around.

I dont see how anyone can have better longevity than this, surely he rates a 9 or better!

Also, on level of competition, his victory over corbett (as a middleweight) is the biggest pound for pound competition anyone has ever achieved. His victory over the numerous no 1 or 2 heavyweight contenders (as a middleweight or at worst light heavyweight) are enormous pound for pound competition. His only defeats (other than the likely dive) were to two heavyweight top 10 or so contenders (either of which would be a huge scalp if he was successful) and to top 10 all time great heavyweights and arguably a top 10-30 all time great light heavyweight. I dont see how he could have taken on any better competition, yet you have given him just 43.5 for resume. The same as Hagler and MOnzon, two good fighters but both of whom never ventured above the middleweight limit! Even an ATG like Harry Greb, does not have the same victories against ATG heavyweights that Fitz has and he was defeated closer to his prime and against lesser fighters than Fitz ever was.

Dominance also is another debatable question. Fitz was a World Heavyweight champion as a middleweight. What other middleweight, in his time or after was even a leading contender? A few light heavys have done what fitz did, but never a middleweight, and even as a heavyweight. Until being upset by Jeffries, Fitz' KO ratio even against leading heavyweight contenders was simply astonishing. I dont see what else he could have done to be any more dominant. in fact, he was so dominant that he never even bothered fighting in his natural weight class, because there was no one considered good enough to meet him. Very few, probably only henry armstrong could come close in this regard.

I think that you could easily raise Fitz 2.5 in relation to longevity, 10 for competition (for his time he pretty much fought and beat every light heavy and heavy contender, just like langford did) and 5 for dominance (like Robinson and the other greats, there quite simply was not a middleweight or light heavyweight of his time that anyone considers was better than Bob Fitzsimmons - either then or now. That is as dominant as it gets). That leaves 17.5 extra points to add to Fitz total (imo). This takes him to 98.5 which i think is a fair indication of his greatness based on your scale.

[sweet_scientist]

That is an excellent list, and you have obviously put a lot of work into it. But,I have to ask the question, how do you justify Bob Fitzsimmons rankings?

You have listed his longevity as a 7. Fitzsimmons won the middleweight in 1891, and was the best middleweight in the world until the day he lost the world title in 1895. From this day forth he was the best light heavyweight and Heavyweight in the world. By 1903, he was still considered the second best heavyweight in the world (at the time of his loss to Jeffries) and later that year he was considered the best light heavyweight in the world. This puts him at the very top of the tree 12 years after becoming the best middleweight in the world. it wasnt until 2 years later when he lost the light heavy champ to another Jack o brien that he was dethroned as the no 1 light heavyweight. That makes him the no 1 pound for pound guys (or thereabouts) for nearly 15 years. And about 5 or so years later he was still giving the World Heavyweight title contender Bill Lang a decent fight. All this is not allowing for the years before he won the world middleweight title, where he beat everyone going around.

I dont see how anyone can have better longevity than this, surely he rates a 9 or better!

Also, on level of competition, his victory over corbett (as a middleweight) is the biggest pound for pound competition anyone has ever achieved. His victory over the numerous no 1 or 2 heavyweight contenders (as a middleweight or at worst light heavyweight) are enormous pound for pound competition. His only defeats (other than the likely dive) were to two heavyweight top 10 or so contenders (either of which would be a huge scalp if he was successful) and to top 10 all time great heavyweights and arguably a top 10-30 all time great light heavyweight. I dont see how he could have taken on any better competition, yet you have given him just 43.5 for resume. The same as Hagler and MOnzon, two good fighters but both of whom never ventured above the middleweight limit! Even an ATG like Harry Greb, does not have the same victories against ATG heavyweights that Fitz has and he was defeated closer to his prime and against lesser fighters than Fitz ever was.

Dominance also is another debatable question. Fitz was a World Heavyweight champion as a middleweight. What other middleweight, in his time or after was even a leading contender? A few light heavys have done what fitz did, but never a middleweight, and even as a heavyweight. Until being upset by Jeffries, Fitz' KO ratio even against leading heavyweight contenders was simply astonishing. I dont see what else he could have done to be any more dominant. in fact, he was so dominant that he never even bothered fighting in his natural weight class, because there was no one considered good enough to meet him. Very few, probably only henry armstrong could come close in this regard.

I think that you could easily raise Fitz 2.5 in relation to longevity, 10 for competition (for his time he pretty much fought and beat every light heavy and heavy contender, just like langford did) and 5 for dominance (like Robinson and the other greats, there quite simply was not a middleweight or light heavyweight of his time that anyone considers was better than Bob Fitzsimmons - either then or now. That is as dominant as it gets). That leaves 17.5 extra points to add to Fitz total (imo). This takes him to 98.5 which i think is a fair indication of his greatness based on your scale.


Good post, and I'll get back to you tonight :good.

[Flea Man]

Arguello too low :lol:

[sweet_scientist]

Arguello too low :lol:

I agree he is. I'll have to make an adjustment.

[Flea Man]

I agree he is. I'll have to make an adjustment.

Good way of doing it, and kudos for even thinking of 120+ fighters :lol: :good

[dublynflya]

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead but Fitzsimmons cant be blamed for being born in the wrong century, you can only rank him in accordance to how he performed in his own time. Personally I thought Whitaker beat Chavez easily, I think I gave Chavez two or three rounds, I had Whitaker-De la Hoya a draw which past prime was an amazing performance from Sweet Pea. Fitz was something else though, a phenomenon, he is one of the greatest middleweights ever and beat a great middleweight to get the title in Dempsey. To step up and take the lineal heavyweight title like he did is unlikely to ever be repeated. Possessed ridiculous punching power. I have Fitz around #11 ATG and Whitaker around #18. In dont rate fighters head to head or anything like that, thats an impossible exercise. Its more record and performance at numeous weights.

:good That makes plenty of sense! good post!!

[dublynflya]

That is an excellent list, and you have obviously put a lot of work into it. But,I have to ask the question, how do you justify Bob Fitzsimmons rankings?

You have listed his longevity as a 7. Fitzsimmons won the middleweight in 1891, and was the best middleweight in the world until the day he lost the world title in 1895. From this day forth he was the best light heavyweight and Heavyweight in the world. By 1903, he was still considered the second best heavyweight in the world (at the time of his loss to Jeffries) and later that year he was considered the best light heavyweight in the world. This puts him at the very top of the tree 12 years after becoming the best middleweight in the world. it wasnt until 2 years later when he lost the light heavy champ to another Jack o brien that he was dethroned as the no 1 light heavyweight. That makes him the no 1 pound for pound guys (or thereabouts) for nearly 15 years. And about 5 or so years later he was still giving the World Heavyweight title contender Bill Lang a decent fight. All this is not allowing for the years before he won the world middleweight title, where he beat everyone going around.

I dont see how anyone can have better longevity than this, surely he rates a 9 or better!

Also, on level of competition, his victory over corbett (as a middleweight) is the biggest pound for pound competition anyone has ever achieved. His victory over the numerous no 1 or 2 heavyweight contenders (as a middleweight or at worst light heavyweight) are enormous pound for pound competition. His only defeats (other than the likely dive) were to two heavyweight top 10 or so contenders (either of which would be a huge scalp if he was successful) and to top 10 all time great heavyweights and arguably a top 10-30 all time great light heavyweight. I dont see how he could have taken on any better competition, yet you have given him just 43.5 for resume. The same as Hagler and MOnzon, two good fighters but both of whom never ventured above the middleweight limit! Even an ATG like Harry Greb, does not have the same victories against ATG heavyweights that Fitz has and he was defeated closer to his prime and against lesser fighters than Fitz ever was.

Dominance also is another debatable question. Fitz was a World Heavyweight champion as a middleweight. What other middleweight, in his time or after was even a leading contender? A few light heavys have done what fitz did, but never a middleweight, and even as a heavyweight. Until being upset by Jeffries, Fitz' KO ratio even against leading heavyweight contenders was simply astonishing. I dont see what else he could have done to be any more dominant. in fact, he was so dominant that he never even bothered fighting in his natural weight class, because there was no one considered good enough to meet him. Very few, probably only henry armstrong could come close in this regard.

I think that you could easily raise Fitz 2.5 in relation to longevity, 10 for competition (for his time he pretty much fought and beat every light heavy and heavy contender, just like langford did) and 5 for dominance (like Robinson and the other greats, there quite simply was not a middleweight or light heavyweight of his time that anyone considers was better than Bob Fitzsimmons - either then or now. That is as dominant as it gets). That leaves 17.5 extra points to add to Fitz total (imo). This takes him to 98.5 which i think is a fair indication of his greatness based on your scale.

:good That was a great read and I for one cannot question your "Rating" of Ruby Robert (Who I consider a top 10 ATG) or your knowledge of the facts! Spot-on!!

[dublynflya]

About 10.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

:good A quite superb post. Of course, there are a lot of fighters upon who's "Ratings" you and I disagree, but that is what this site is all about:-). But the fact is this is a great list, with your ratings and methodology available for all to view and discuss accordingly.:good

[HomicideHenry]

Whitaker was a better fighter than Fitzsimmons, but its Bob whose the greater p4p fighter. To be no more than a middleweight and capture the heavyweight title and in his 40's capture the 175 pound crown, is amazing. Fitzsimmons also had a very good amateur background. But, that being said, Whitaker was better than Fitzsimmons.

[janitor]

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead

Depends what you mean by ability.

I would submit that as a finisher Fitzsimmons has few peers pound for pound in any era.

[sweet_scientist]

That is an excellent list, and you have obviously put a lot of work into it.

Appreciated :good

But,I have to ask the question, how do you justify Bob Fitzsimmons rankings?

You have listed his longevity as a 7. Fitzsimmons won the middleweight in 1891, and was the best middleweight in the world until the day he lost the world title in 1895. From this day forth he was the best light heavyweight and Heavyweight in the world. By 1903, he was still considered the second best heavyweight in the world (at the time of his loss to Jeffries) and later that year he was considered the best light heavyweight in the world. This puts him at the very top of the tree 12 years after becoming the best middleweight in the world. it wasnt until 2 years later when he lost the light heavy champ to another Jack o brien that he was dethroned as the no 1 light heavyweight. That makes him the no 1 pound for pound guys (or thereabouts) for nearly 15 years. And about 5 or so years later he was still giving the World Heavyweight title contender Bill Lang a decent fight. All this is not allowing for the years before he won the world middleweight title, where he beat everyone going around.

I dont see how anyone can have better longevity than this, surely he rates a 9 or better!

For me longevity is about two things:
1. Being at the top of the sport for a long time.
2. Having a lot of fights (especially meaningful ones, not record padding ones) at the top of the sport.

Granted, Bob has point 1 covered. But as for point 2, I don't think he's had enough fights to really score well in that regard.

Scores of 9 and above are reserved for the likes of Archie Moore, Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep. Guys that were at the top of the sport for a long time but also had a stack of meaningful fights in that time.

I'm happy for you to argue that he deserves about an 8 as far as longevity goes, but he's not amongst the absolute elite by my criteria.


Also, on level of competition, his victory over corbett (as a middleweight) is the biggest pound for pound competition anyone has ever achieved. His victory over the numerous no 1 or 2 heavyweight contenders (as a middleweight or at worst light heavyweight) are enormous pound for pound competition. His only defeats (other than the likely dive) were to two heavyweight top 10 or so contenders (either of which would be a huge scalp if he was successful) and to top 10 all time great heavyweights and arguably a top 10-30 all time great light heavyweight. I dont see how he could have taken on any better competition, yet you have given him just 43.5 for resume. The same as Hagler and MOnzon, two good fighters but both of whom never ventured above the middleweight limit! Even an ATG like Harry Greb, does not have the same victories against ATG heavyweights that Fitz has and he was defeated closer to his prime and against lesser fighters than Fitz ever was.

If it wasn't for the fact that Bob was slaying giants, I don't think his resume would be near that of Hagler or Monzon. I mean in terms of the names each has on their ledger, it far outstrips Bob's in my opinion.

Who are the good fighters that Bob Fitzsimmons has beaten?

Non-Pareil Dempsey (Excellent fighter, but he had gone 3-2-1 in his previous 6 fights).
James Corbett (Was he anything more than say an Antonio Tarver level fighter?)
Tom Sharkey
Joe Choynski
Jim Hall
Dan Creedon
Peter Maher
Gus Ruhlin
George Gardner

Simply not nearly as good a resume as what Hagler or Monzon has AS FAR AS THE QUALITY OF THE FIGHTERs FACED goes.

Taking into account that Bob was outweighed significantly in quite a few of those fights though, THAT'S what makes me bring up his resume to the level of a Hagler or Monzon.


Dominance also is another debatable question. Fitz was a World Heavyweight champion as a middleweight. What other middleweight, in his time or after was even a leading contender? A few light heavys have done what fitz did, but never a middleweight, and even as a heavyweight. Until being upset by Jeffries, Fitz' KO ratio even against leading heavyweight contenders was simply astonishing. I dont see what else he could have done to be any more dominant. in fact, he was so dominant that he never even bothered fighting in his natural weight class, because there was no one considered good enough to meet him. Very few, probably only henry armstrong could come close in this regard.

I've given him a score of 32.75 out of 40 for dominance, which is quite a high score, but I do think you have merit to what you say here, and he could move up a bit as far as domainance goes. He did lose a few fights here and there, but he didn't lose to any hacks and they were giant men compared to him. And for sure his kO ratio was pretty insane...

I think that you could easily raise Fitz 2.5 in relation to longevity, 10 for competition (for his time he pretty much fought and beat every light heavy and heavy contender, just like langford did) and 5 for dominance (like Robinson and the other greats, there quite simply was not a middleweight or light heavyweight of his time that anyone considers was better than Bob Fitzsimmons - either then or now. That is as dominant as it gets). That leaves 17.5 extra points to add to Fitz total (imo). This takes him to 98.5 which i think is a fair indication of his greatness based on your scale.

You're entitled to you opinion mate, but I disagree mostly, for the reasons given above.

I would be willing to give Bob an extra point for his dominance, and perhaps half a point in terms of longevity, but unless I'm ignorant of something you know, I just don't think the people he beat are good enough to propel him to such lofty standards as far as resumes go.

[sweet_scientist]

:good A quite superb post. Of course, there are a lot of fighters upon who's "Ratings" you and I disagree, but that is what this site is all about:-). But the fact is this is a great list, with your ratings and methodology available for all to view and discuss accordingly.:good

Cheers man. :thumbsup

I like my criteria probably more than the list I've made (still has a bit of work to do and a few things to tweak for sure), but it's a start.

Here are the explanations for my criteria btw, just in case you were interested:

P4P CRITERIA

RESUME (50 POINTS)
The focus is on the quality of fighters beaten, but:
- The size of the opponent and difficulty of the task is relevant to the quality of the opponent (e.g. John Ruiz is a better win for Roy Jones than Juan Manuel Marquez is for Floyd Mayweather, even though Juan Manuel Marquez is a better fighter than John Ruiz).
- Beating someone at their peak/in their prime counts for more than beating someone past their peak/prime, so it's not just the 'name' that is relevant to the quality of the fighter but the stage they were at in their careers.
- Beating a fighter in a title fight should count for more than beating a fighter in a non-title fight, assuming that the fighter was at their best for the title fight and the fight was over a championship length, which tests a fighter’s limits to a greater extent than a fight scheduled for less rounds (e.g. a win in a 15 round fight is worth more than a win in a 6 round fight, all other things being equal).
- The quantity of fighters beaten counts a little too, so beating a quality opponent more than once is a plus.
- Close losses contribute to assessing the quality of one's resume.
- Not close but nevertheless honourable losses count somewhat too.

DOMINANCE (40 POINTS)
Indicators of dominance include:
- Consistently winning (early losses or past prime losses don't get penalised that much).
- The manner of victory (ko's, shut outs and near shutouts etc. are all indicative of dominance).
- Cleaning out divisions.
- Conquering in multiple weight divisions.

LONGEVITY (10 POINTS)
A fighter scores well for longevity if:
- They are around at a high level for a long duration of time.
- They have a lot of fights at a high level.
- Ideally a fighter should have a combination of both of the above to score extremely well for longevity.

CHARACTER (10 POINTS)
One gets points for character if they do things like:
- Take risks (e.g. fight everyone in and around their weight division and not duck opponents, offer rematches, go out on their shields in an effort to win fights rather than hold on just to survive etc)
- Overcome adversity.
- Bear up well to adversity even if they don't win (and this is shown by the ability to take an ass whipping when it's your way coming, so durability counts here).

[abraq]

Different eras, different classes, different styles.

Oh God! Why should I answer this?

[JimmyShimmy]

Different eras doesn't matter.

I think I've got a good scope of the gap. Most throw away these comparisons because they sport the infantile thought of "Boxing was prehistoric back then!", which of course is both ridiculous and false.

Both were super outstanding fighters, but you can never underrate the Cornishman’s destruction of many men far bigger than himself.

[essexboy]

Depends what you mean by ability.

I would submit that as a finisher Fitzsimmons has few peers pound for pound in any era.

All I'm saying is anybody that thinks boxing hasnt evolved into a sport of higher skill in the last hundred years is deluding themselves which is why I value abilty at the time over anything else. No doubt if Fitz was trained today with the natural skills he possessed he would be a phenomenal fighter but at the time he was as good as he was able to be given the ability of his opponents and was a great in his time, which is why I rank him so highly.

[Mantequilla]

It's Boab.

[janitor]

All I'm saying is anybody that thinks boxing hasnt evolved into a sport of higher skill in the last hundred years is deluding themselves which is why I value abilty at the time over anything else.

You will have to put me down as deluding myself then because I think that Fitzsimmons was every bit as skillful under the rule set of his own era as Whitaker was under the rules of his.

[essexboy]

You will have to put me down as deluding myself then because I think that Fitzsimmons was every bit as skillful under the rule set of his own era as Whitaker was under the rules of his.

Yeah I agree what I'm saying is with the skills he possessed at the time he would struggle now. Theres no doubting his greatness at the time I acknowledged that.

[JimmyShimmy]

Or maybe the modern boys would struggle! You never know.

Styles mesh and things happen. Because boxing relies so much on intangibles and experience you can never count a great man out!

It is utterly different to any other physical competition. There are too many variables. In areas where boxing has improved it has also degenerated!

Heed the word of Jimmy!

[essexboy]

Or maybe the modern boys would struggle! You never know.

Styles mesh and things happen. Because boxing relies so much on intangibles and experience you can never count a great man out!

It is utterly different to any other physical competition. There are too many variables. In areas where boxing has improved it has also degenerated!

Heed the word of Jimmy!

Your right I dont know for sure but I would honestly be suprised if it were true. Dont get me wrong I certainly hold Fitzsimmons in higher regard than Pavlik or any middleweights champs around now, thats for sure.

[JimmyShimmy]

Your right I dont know for sure but I would honestly be suprised if it were true. Dont get me wrong I certainly hold Fitzsimmons in higher regard than Pavlik or any middleweights champs around now, thats for sure.

That's cool mister!

It's just so that similar thoughts often prove the catalyst for Met-Rx swiggin' MMA junkies to proclaim modern training measures as the be-all-and-end-all of one-on-one combat.

You of course are certainly no such silly!

[janitor]

Yeah I agree what I'm saying is with the skills he possessed at the time he would struggle now. Theres no doubting his greatness at the time I acknowledged that.

What I do know about Fitzsimmons is that he was knocking durable 200lb fighters out so cold that they had to be carried back to their dressing rooms.

Now even if we accept that his power was comparable to sombody like Gerald McClellan he must have had incredible timing and delivery.

I have to think that any middleweight who fought him in any era would be staring down the barrel of a laser guided cannon.