Has Bob Fitzsimmons Got A Legit Claim As The Gretest Fighter Of All Time?

[Frazier Hook]

Well? Undisputed Middlweight, Light Heavyweight, and Heavyweight Champion. His resume of wins is also pretty strong.

Does anyone on here think Fitz is actually the greatest fighter of all time?

[TommyV]

I can't see a good case for ranking him above the likes of Langford, Greb, Robinson, Armstong & co myself, but I wouldn't have any qualms seeing him in a top 10 though. Like you say, champion at 160, 175 and HW, he's strong, powerful and tough, and with wins like Dempsey, Maher, Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin and Gardner his resumé isn't bad either.

[McGrain]

Between 1896 and 1903 he matched mainly HW's, was the champion of the world, and lost only one fight to James Jeffries who is universally recognised as one of the greatest HW's in history. Yet he won the MW at 154lbs. His win over Corbett is probably better than any single win by any man ever to weigh in at or around that kind of weight-class.

He was also the first three weight world champ.

A case, yeah.

[kosaros]

No.

[PowerPuncher]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

[McGrain]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not


Even if you are correct is that really the way to decide what quantifies greatness? How modern training compares to less modern training?

I'm so exhausted hearing this sprinting comparison and explaininng why it's nonsensical I'm not even going to touch it. Someone will be along in a minute no doubt.

[JimmyShimmy]

Did someone just mention Bob Fitzsimmons and then say something about 'bad training'. Heh.

What the hell does 'bad training' mean anyway? Like you have to be told how a do a push-up? Fitzsimmons was a cardiovascular monster who trained from sunrise to sunset.

I find it hard to make a case for fighters to rank above him! A natural middleweight who made a habit of sparking out legit heavy's while scratching at the SMW poundage.

[Flea Man]

I think he has a claim yeah.

Although I don't necessarily think he's a lock for beating every fighter around the 168-175lb mark. Although if he's allowed to wear his gloves (which I allow in hypothetical matchups) he's gonna' do some damage despite any evolutions in technique that may have taken place between, for arguments sake, Fitzsimmons and Matthew Saad Muhammad.

So, in short, his achievements mark him out to be a fighter of some worth, and some magnitude.

Do I think he's infallible though? No. Can I envision him being beaten fairly emphatically by fighters round his weight class? There's not much footage, and grainy as it is and glittering as his reputation may be, I'm gonna' say yes.

I don't hold him in the high esteem I do for Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson or Roberto Duran. But in terms of 'how good was he for his time' I'd say pretty much the best. Therefore he has to be ranked amongst the best of all time.

[Sweet Pea]

The argument could be made, though I wouldn't personally put him at the #1 spot. I've really come along to Fitz over time. As of now I believe he's a legitimate top 10 all time great, whereas I used to have him in the 15-20 range.

[junior-soprano]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

this is the greatest bullshit i have ever red.
you have to learn to see things in perspective. bolt lives in modern times with modern training methods and modern food and so on and so on. maybe by looking at in in perspective don lipincott was a greater athlete then usain bolt who knows ??
look at cycling. fausto coppi was a great from the 40ties and 50ties. those days the material was not as good as today they didn't know so much about good food. if you take an average ahtlete from today that person will cycle faster then coppi. does that mean the modern guy is a better ahtlete ?? ofcourse not...it's a matter of perspective... and this goes for all sports.

[SLAKKA]

Dident the legendary LA Times sportswriter jim murrey label Fitz "a stork with a backache" after reviewing film?

[Frazier Hook]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

Fitzsimmons's greatness shound't be judged on how he would do in this era or by comparing his style in the modern era.

His skills and accomplishments should be judged on his own time of fighting. And for his own time he was a true ATG.

I hate it when you say stuff like this. There is no douting boxing has evovled in so many aspects since Fitzsimmons time of fighting, but that dosent mean we should take his accomplishments away ot discredit him.

Fitzsimmons's skills and accomplishments should be judged on his own time and era of fighting.

[Flea Man]

I have to say the way he constantly leans back would work for a very tall fighter, but if he tried to do that against a lot of 'modern' fighters they'd soon find ways to exploit it.

I assume upon trying so they would be hit by one of these monsterous shots? I just don't see it, though as Frazier Hook says, in terms of his era Fitz was very good. You rank him on your list depending on how favourably you view his era.

[janitor]

That he a case could be made for him should be beyond question.

He is the only middleweight since the conception of the division, ever to establish himself as the undisputed No1 heavyweight. That in itself should tell you how hard a transition that is to make. He was the first three division champ and across three divisions where the feat has never been replicated.

On top of that he is not even regarded as one of the weaker heavyweight champions by many people. A strong case could be made for a top 20 ranking in that weight class. He is certainly the best heavyweight finisher of his era and probably the best finisher of the period between John L Sullivan and Sam Langford.

Finaly, some historians do rank him as the greatest fighter of all time so they are clearly trying to make the case whether they are right or not.

[janitor]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.


If you think you can find a middleweright of the postwar era with a tougher training regime than Bob Fitzsimmons then good luck.

[PowerPuncher]

Even if you are correct is that really the way to decide what quantifies greatness? How modern training compares to less modern training?

I'm so exhausted hearing this sprinting comparison and explaininng why it's nonsensical I'm not even going to touch it. Someone will be along in a minute no doubt.

Every measurable sport has improved, not just sprinting but everything. Boxing is more complex than just being the physical best, but technique has also improved

We also have to remember to become a champion you (usually) have to beat a champion, so in essence attempt to improve on the champion thats there. Now yes champions maybe past prime when they get beat but generally the quality of champion should improve in theory. This wont always happen but as a trend could do

It should also be noted starting as a MW and going up to beat small cruserweights (which is all Fitz did) is no more impressive than being a MW and beating cruserweights today

James Toney achieved more than Fitz by a landslide in terms of the quality of the opposition he beat and Toney would outbox Corbett too

[McGrain]

Every measurable sport has improved, not just sprinting but everything. Boxing is more complex than just being the physical best, but technique has also improved

Boxing is not only not measurable - so not in the category you've described - it's also the most special of sports.

Certainly comparing it to running very fast in a straight line is absolutle shite.

We also have to remember to become a champion you (usually) have to beat a champion, so in essence attempt to improve on the champion thats there. Now yes champions maybe past prime when they get beat but generally the quality of champion should improve in theory. This wont always happen but as a trend could do

Shite.

It should also be noted starting as a MW and going up to beat small cruserweights (which is all Fitz did) is no more impressive than being a MW and beating cruserweights today


The new cruiserweight limit is 260lbs? Or is the above also shite?


James Toney achieved more than Fitz by a landslide in terms of the quality of the opposition he beat and Toney would outbox Corbett too

James Toney was at no point the #1 HW in the world.

Shite.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5759718]It should also be noted starting as a MW and going up to beat small cruserweights (which is all Fitz did) is no more impressive than being a MW and beating cruserweights today

Although Fitz won the heavyweight title from Corbett who was a cruiserweight in todays money he lost it to Jeffries who was clearly a heavyweight.

How long would Fitzsimmons have been champion if you had to find a fighter under 200 lbs to beat him?

It should also be noted that Corbett himself won the title from Sullivan who was well over 200 lbs.

A cruiserweight is not just a fighter who weighs less than 200 lbs it is also a fighter who is proitected by a weight limit of 200 lbs. Even if many of the top heavyweights of this era were under 200 lbs, there was no cruiserweight limit to protect them so they could only get to the top by being better than the best fighters over 200 lbs.

James Toney achieved more than Fitz by a landslide in terms of the quality of the opposition he beat and Toney would outbox Corbett too

This is a ridiculous asertion.

Firstly James Toney was never close to being the best fighter on the planet at heavyweight.

Secondly he never beat anybody close to being as good as Corbett even at cruiserweight.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Boxing is not only not measurable - so not in the category you've described - it's also the most special of sports.

Certainly comparing it to running very fast in a straight line is absolutley ridiculous.



Shite.


2. The new cruiserweight limit is 260lbs? Or is the above also shite?

3. James Toney was at no point the #1 HW in the world.

Shite.

1. All types of running records from marathon to the 100m have improved DRASTICALLY. Powerlifters and strongmen have improved DRASTICALLY

Lets see what many many boxers have improved on Fitz:

A. if you want to measure fitness, many boxers run 1/2 marathons faster than Fitz, most are stronger.

B. Most are way faster than Fitz

C. Most throw many more punches a round than Fitz

D. Nearly all have better technique, better defensive techniques, better lateral movement, better combination punching

2. Fitz beat a 183lb who wasnt a puncher and didnt have great technique, other MWs have beat much better and bigger fighters than Corbett and Jones/Toney both beat better and much bigger HWs. Patterson is also an ex-MW for the record, so was Ellis.

3. Toney would have easily beat everyone in Fitz's day including Corbett, Jeffries and fitz himself. I dont rate Toney that highly but hes an example of how boxing technique is far superior to what it was 110years ago

[McGrain]

1. All types of running records from marathon to the 100m have improved DRASTICALLY. Powerlifters and strongmen have improved DRASTICALLY

Comparing running to boxing is shite.

2. Fitz beat a 183lb who wasnt a puncher and didnt have great technique, other MWs have beat much better and bigger fighters than Corbett and Jones/Toney both beat better and much bigger HWs. Patterson is also an ex-MW for the record, so was Ellis.


So? So what? Beating "small cruiserweights" isn't "all he did". That was just shite.

Corbett is a top 20 HW all time. Comparing him to the ONE HW victim of Roy Jones is embarrassing.

3. Toney would have easily beat everyone in Fitz's day including Corbett, Jeffries and fitz himself

Your opinion is noted and even if correct, totally worthless.

[SLAKKA]

Dunno if i have to re invent this wheel but doz this newsgroup know about nat fleischer vs jim jacobs from the early/mid 1960 on this very topic??

[Sweet Pea]

Dunno if i have to re invent this wheel but doz this newsgroup know about nat fleischer vs jim jacobs from the early/mid 1960 on this very topic??No, but I would love to hear some insight.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Comparing running to boxing is shite.

2. So? So what? Beating "small cruiserweights" isn't "all he did". That was just shite.

3. Corbett is a top 20 HW all time. Comparing him to the ONE HW victim of Roy Jones is embarrassing.

4. Your opinion is noted and even if correct, totally worthless.

1. Only because it proves the point that athletes in every sport have generally improved. Find me a measurable sport that hasnt significantly improved in the last 100years, you can't and you won't

2. Boxing was just garbage in the 1900s. It was in its infancy, men were smaller, weaker, less skilled. Then men Fotz beat were rubbish, they wouldnt be top 10 today and Fitz was rubbish himself. Whats more black men werent given equal opportunity and it was a mainly an American sport

3. Ruiz beats Corbett and Fitz, boxings moved on

4. It is correct, and fact is never worthless, the boxing skill of those men were sub-standard, Toney picks them all apart, Pavlik might well beat Fitz and Corbett himself

[Bokaj]

1. All types of running records from marathon to the 100m have improved DRASTICALLY. Powerlifters and strongmen have improved DRASTICALLY

Lets see what many many boxers have improved on Fitz:

A. if you want to measure fitness, many boxers run 1/2 marathons faster than Fitz, most are stronger.

B. Most are way faster than Fitz

C. Most throw many more punches a round than Fitz

D. Nearly all have better technique, better defensive techniques, better lateral movement, better combination punching

2. Fitz beat a 183lb who wasnt a puncher and didnt have great technique, other MWs have beat much better and bigger fighters than Corbett and Jones/Toney both beat better and much bigger HWs. Patterson is also an ex-MW for the record, so was Ellis.

3. Toney would have easily beat everyone in Fitz's day including Corbett, Jeffries and fitz himself. I dont rate Toney that highly but hes an example of how boxing technique is far superior to what it was 110years ago

But still, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You can only rate a fighter after what he does in his own time. Ranking Fitz by what you think he would or wouldn't accomplish today is almost as much as waste of time as ranking Pac by how you think he would do in a 100 years time.

Can't we just skip this dicussion and focus on what Fitz achieved in his own time and how that compares to what other ATGs achieved in their own time?

[SLAKKA]

Oh shit this is gonne be time consuming, do you know who jimmy j was??
Do you know who Nat F was??

[McGrain]

1. Only because it proves the point that athletes in every sport have generally improved. Find me a measurable sport that hasnt significantly improved in the last 100years

No, it proves that running has improved.

Then men Fotz beat were rubbish

:lol:


3. Ruiz beats Corbett, boxings moved on

I think, as Bokaj has pointed out, you're struggling a little to understand what is being discussed here.

4. It is correct, and fact is never worthless, the boxing skill of those men were sub-standard, Toney picks them all apart

Your opinion is a "correct fact"?

[mattdonnellon]

yes

[PowerPuncher]

1. No, it proves that running has improved.

:lol:

2. I think, as Bokaj has pointed out, you're struggling a little to understand what is being discussed here.

3. Your opinion is a "correct fact"?

1. Running, weight lifting, powerlifting, cycling, every single measurable sport. Fitness, speed, strength have all moved on in all sports, that is widely accepted. Technique in boxing has moved on, that much we know

2. I value quality of performance as 1 of the highest criteria. If we're not going to look at quality then likes of Ray Leonard isn't that great, but he was great because we can see how good he and the other Fab 5 are on on film

3. Thats right, glad you have figured out now

[GPater11093]

I have to say the way he constantly leans back would work for a very tall fighter, but if he tried to do that against a lot of 'modern' fighters they'd soon find ways to exploit it.

I assume upon trying so they would be hit by one of these monsterous shots? I just don't see it, though as Frazier Hook says, in terms of his era Fitz was very good. You rank him on your list depending on how favourably you view his era.

He didnt just lean back he was quite a good defensive boxer. He moved his head back and to the side but just enough to avoid the shot. His right hand was kept high for a parry, apperently he didnt seem to parry head shots with his left hand looking to parry the body shots with his left arm. Upon making you miss he would make you pay with punishing shots to head and body.

Also I definitly think Fitzsimmons is one of the greatest fighters that ever lived but i do not think he is the greatest but he is up there with your Henry Armstrong's, Harry Greb's etc... Meaning he could validly be rated the best ever.

[McGrain]

1. Running, weight lifting, powerlifting, cycling, every single measurable sport. Fitness, speed, strength have all moved on in all sports, that is widely accepted. Technique in boxing has moved on, that much we know

Every single MEASURABLE sport. Yes.

2. I value quality of performance as 1 of the highest criteria.

And that is the reason why your definition is always going to be amongst the narrowest on the board and of the least value to the rest of us.

[PowerPuncher]

But still, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You can only rate a fighter after what he does in his own time. Ranking Fitz by what you think he would or wouldn't accomplish today is almost as much as waste of time as ranking Pac by how you think he would do in a 100 years time.

Can't we just skip this dicussion and focus on what Fitz achieved in his own time and how that compares to what other ATGs achieved in their own time?

As I said I think quality of performance in the key factor. Quality of opposition is a key factor too.

Plus Fitz beating champions that span a weight of 23lbs isn't that significant an achievement anyway.

Being a 167lb man just wasnt a big disadvantage back then, Tommy Burns was a 168lb heavyweight HW champ himself and he was giving up more height. Plus he made more defenses than fitz and was 4inches shorter.

Should Burns be rated as the greatest fighter of all time?

[Sweet Pea]

Oh shit this is gonne be time consuming, do you know who jimmy j was??
Do you know who Nat F was??Yup. Jacobs was Tyson's co-manager back in the early days before his death. He was also an avid historian and posessed a wealth of fight footage, therefore a debate between he and one of the premier boxing historians of all time in Nat Fleischer is something I'd be very interested in hearing about. I would go into more depth about Jacobs's own athletic prowess but that would be besides the point.

I know much about both of the men at hand. You don't have to explain their credentials to me, just what took place amidst their debate.

[Sweet Pea]

1. Only because it proves the point that athletes in every sport have generally improved. Find me a measurable sport that hasnt significantly improved in the last 100years, you can't and you won't

2. Boxing was just garbage in the 1900s. It was in its infancy, men were smaller, weaker, less skilled. Then men Fotz beat were rubbish, they wouldnt be top 10 today and Fitz was rubbish himself. Whats more black men werent given equal opportunity and it was a mainly an American sport

3. Ruiz beats Corbett and Fitz, boxings moved on

4. It is correct, and fact is never worthless, the boxing skill of those men were sub-standard, Toney picks them all apart, Pavlik might well beat Fitz and Corbett himself:lol:You are something else.

[janitor]

and it was a mainly an American sport

3. Ruiz beats Corbett and Fitz, boxings moved on

4. It is correct, and fact is never worthless, the boxing skill of those men were sub-standard, Toney picks them all apart, Pavlik might well beat Fitz and Corbett himself

You are verry liberal when it comes to handing your favourite fighters wins over fighters from other era's without them even needing to get into the ring.

You wonder that they even bother to train when they can get wins over legends of the past for so little effort.

The reason why boxing matches are held is because of the inherant uncertainty.

The bottom line is that Corbett was the best heavyweight of his era and Ruiz wasn't.

Toney didn't beat Corbett, Fitzsimmons beat him.

To equal Fitzsimmons acomplioshment Toney would have had to clean out the heavyweight division and establish himself as the undisputed champion.

He didn't...........

[zarman]

if you wouldn't laugh at someone ranking him at #1 then yes a case could be made

[janitor]

Being a 167lb man just wasnt a big disadvantage back then, Tommy Burns was a 168lb heavyweight HW champ himself and he was giving up more height. Plus he made more defenses than fitz and was 4inches shorter.

Should Burns be rated as the greatest fighter of all time?

Burns was a pound for pound great, though not as great as Fitz because he didn't win the title at 160 and he didn't clean out the heavyweight division like Fitz did.

The most laughable part of your post is when yopu say that being a 167lb man was not a big disadvantage back then.

Being a 167lb man back then meant that you were a heavyweight, which meant that you might have to fight some 230lb monster to win a title. Jem Mace weighed under the curent middleweight limit and he had to fight 230lb Sam Hurst to win the title. I wonder if he felt that being a 160 lb man wasn't much of a disadvantage.

[PowerPuncher]

Burns was a pound for pound great, though not as great as Fitz because he didn't win the title at 160 and he didn't clean out the heavyweight division like Fitz did.

The most laughable part of your post is when yopu say that being a 167lb man was not a big disadvantage back then.

Being a 167lb man back then meant that you were a heavyweight, which meant that you might have to fight some 230lb monster to win a title. Jem Mace weighed under the curent middleweight limit and he had to fight 230lb Sam Hurst to win the title. I wonder if he felt that being a 160 lb man wasn't much of a disadvantage.

Ofcourse it wasnt a disadvantage, the good big men were 180-200lbs, Roy Jones light heavyweight opposition weighed these weights in the ring. Plus Jones opponents clearly have better skills

Jones took on a 235lb champion, who wasnt fat like any of the big men of Fitz's day. Jeffries was a super heavyweight then but only the same size as Ruiz, plus Ruiz had better jab and straight right.

Ruiz wasnt undisputed but given the white champion of those days didnt fight the coloured champions, they werent undisputed champions either

[PowerPuncher]

You are verry liberal when it comes to handing your favourite fighters wins over fighters from other era's without them even needing to get into the ring.

You wonder that they even bother to train when they can get wins over legends of the past for so little effort.

The reason why boxing matches are held is because of the inherant uncertainty.

The bottom line is that Corbett was the best heavyweight of his era and Ruiz wasn't.

Toney didn't beat Corbett, Fitzsimmons beat him.

To equal Fitzsimmons acomplioshment Toney would have had to clean out the heavyweight division and establish himself as the undisputed champion.

He didn't...........

Its not only Toney, he was just 1 example, most of the Middleweight and Super Middleweight champions of the last 50years would beat Fitz and Corbett

Carl Froch is rightfully considered pre historic in todays boxing but hes still just as skilled as Fitz and Corbett if not more so

[PowerPuncher]

Plus Duran beats Fitz at 160, the slow open, technically poor, leaning back, 1 punch at a time style of Fitz's would be made to measure for Duran.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760214]Ofcourse it wasnt a disadvantage, the good big men were 180-200lbs,

Why do you never learn from your mistakes?

You should at least check the facts before making statments like this.

Sullivan was well over 200lb's and so was Jeffries. These were the guys that Fitzsimmons and Corbett were up against.

Then you have a contenders like McAuliffe, and Ruhlin who you have to get past before you can even get in the ring with the champion.

Then before you can fight them you have to move up through the ranks against men ranging from your own size to that of Vitally Klitschko.

Of course weighing 160lbs is a disadvantage at heavyweight.


Jones took on a 235lb champion, who wasnt fat like any of the big men of Fitz's day. Jeffries was a super heavyweight then but only the same size as Ruiz, plus Ruiz had better jab and straight right.


How could you look at Ruiz on film and think that he was as good as Jeffries even allowing for possible development of style.

Ruiz wasnt undisputed but given the white champion of those days didnt fight the coloured champions, they werent undisputed champions either

Yes they were.

When Sullivan unified the various title claims there were no outstanding black contenders so the fact that he only fought white oponents is neither here nor there.

Jim Corbett had to fight Peter Jackson (the best black contender of the era) to get a title shot.

Fitz knocked out Corbett.

Prety simple realy.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760231]Its not only Toney, he was just 1 example, most of the Middleweight and Super Middleweight champions of the last 50years would beat Fitz and Corbett


No, you think they would.

Untill they prove it in the ring it is just speculation on your part.

Carl Froch is rightfully considered pre historic in todays boxing but hes still just as skilled as Fitz and Corbett if not more so

Complete rubish.

Could you imagine Froch knocking out the guys that Fitz knocked out with a single punch or combination, even if their technique was poor?

[janitor]

Plus Duran beats Fitz at 160, the slow open, technically poor, leaning back, 1 punch at a time style of Fitz's would be made to measure for Duran.

He wouldn't fight that way against Duran.

He only employed that style against larger oponents.

If you want to see how Duran fares against Fitzsimmons then watch the Hearns fight.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]

Why do you never learn from your mistakes?

You should at least check the facts before making statments like this.

Sullivan was well over 200lb's and so was Jeffries. These were the guys that Fitzsimmons and Corbett were up against.

Then you have a contenders like McAuliffe, and Ruhlin who you have to get past before you can even get in the ring with the champion.

Then before you can fight them you have to move up through the ranks against men ranging from your own size to that of Vitally Klitschko.

Of course weighing 160lbs is a disadvantage at heavyweight.



How could you look at Ruiz on film and think that he was as good as Jeffries even allowing for possible development of style.



Yes they were.

When Sullivan unified the various title claims there were no outstanding black contenders so the fact that he only fought white oponents is neither here nor there.

Jim Corbett had to fight Peter Jackson (the best black contender of the era) to get a title shot.

Fitz knocked out Corbett.

Prety simple realy.

It doesnt matter if their were men over 200lbs they were all pathetic. Sullivan was known to have little to no skill and he wasnt in particularly good shape. The workrate of these fights was 1mph, they had poor technique, poor defense, didnt throw combinations, amongst countless faults.

Ruiz would have been 1 of the more skilled boxers in the 1890s and his style of jab and grab would fit perfectly in the era. He'd also be HUGE for the time. I'd concede Jeffries may beat him but it would be a long drawn out close fight

[TommyV]

I'm loving this. :lol:

[PowerPuncher]

He wouldn't fight that way against Duran.

He only employed that style against larger oponents.

If you want to see how Duran fares against Fitzsimmons then watch the Hearns fight.

Fitz isnt half as quick or half as skillfull as Hearns

[McGrain]

It doesnt matter if their were men over 200lbs they were all pathetic.

Here is James Toney explaining the amazing diet that keeps him from going all pathetic:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Popkins]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

In that case Vitali Klitschko should rank higher in terms of all-time greatness than Jack Johnson, and Andrew Golota should rank higher than Rocky Marciano.

:patsch

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. No, you think they would. Untill they prove it in the ring it is just speculation on your part.

2. Complete rubish. Could you imagine Froch knocking out the guys that Fitz knocked out with a single punch or combination, even if their technique was poor?

1. Many similarly sized men have proved more in the ring than Fitz, beating visably more skilled, stronger, faster, higher workrate fighters and bigger men. Countless Examples

Patterson, Charles, Moore, Jones, Toney, Greb, Jimmy Ellis are Middleweights who have done more at HW than Fitz

2. Yes Froch probably would have knocked out all of Fitz's opposition

[PowerPuncher]

Here is James Toney explaining the amazing diet that keeps him from going all pathetic:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Toney is past it and fat but still has 100,000,000,000% more skilled than anyone from the 1890s, plus hes more muscled than anyone from that era bar Jeffries

[TommyV]

Fitz isnt half as quick or half as skillfull as Hearns

You are arguing that a 160 version of Duran beats Fitzsimmons? How exactly would he deal with Fitzsimmon's power and aggression and strength? Duran would be bullied all around the ring, and that's saying something when we are talking about Roberto Duran.

[mattdonnellon]

Fitz was a winner and a thinker, in any era he would be great. He had the physical ability and mental strenght and intellegence to be a force at any time.

[McGrain]

100,000,000,000%

:lol:

[PowerPuncher]

You are arguing that a 160 version of Duran beats Fitzsimmons? How exactly would he deal with Fitzsimmon's power and aggression and strength? Duran would be bullied all around the ring, and that's saying something when we are talking about Roberto Duran.

The same way he dealt with Barkley who was a bigger puncher, more aggressive, and brought way more pressure than Fitz. Barkley probably KOs Fitz

[JimmyShimmy]

I'd prefer to fight Hearn's over Fitzsimmons, that's for sure.

It matters not when you were around, you don't have a career likes Fitzsimmons' and come away not knowing much about fistic combat.

One time "Fitzsimmons was not happy with his training quarters so he just punched it in the canal." NY Times, 1896, July 12th, P36.

[McGrain]

I'd "Fitzsimmons was not happy with his training quarters so he just punched it in the canal." NY Times, 1896, July 12th, P36.


:lol:

[TommyV]

Toney is past it and fat but still has 100,000,000,000% more skilled than anyone from the 1890s, plus hes more muscled than anyone from that era bar Jeffries

So muscled equat to greatness, then? That's practically what you are saying there. Number one, that's bullshit - Toney is fat, a lot fatter than a number of guys from 'that era' as you put it. And number two, according to you they were all fat and unconditioned. So how were they about to go 20/25 rounds?

[TommyV]

The same way he dealt with Barkley who was a bigger puncher, more aggressive, and brought way more pressure than Fitz. Barkley probably KOs Fitz

By what virtue is Barkley a bigger puncher than Fitzsimmons?

We'll forget this debate anyway. We'll get back to what Bokaj said, why can't we accept that Fitzsimmons did great things in his own era? It's pointless trying to take him out of that era, chuck him into today's scene and then debating how he'd do.

[PowerPuncher]

So muscled equat to greatness, then? That's practically what you are saying there. Number one, that's bullshit - Toney is fat, a lot fatter than a number of guys from 'that era' as you put it. And number two, according to you they were all fat and unconditioned. So how were they about to go 20/25 rounds?

Muscle is important it helps bones extend quickly but its only 1 of many factors. The main difference is the 1,000,000,000,000,000% improvement in skill Toney has over them

They could go 20-25 rounds because they threw 3punches a round

[PowerPuncher]

By what virtue is Barkley a bigger puncher than Fitzsimmons?

We'll forget this debate anyway. We'll get back to what Bokaj said, why can't we accept that Fitzsimmons did great things in his own era? It's pointless trying to take him out of that era, chuck him into today's scene and then debating how he'd do.

Barkley was a beast who took guys out wearing bigger gloves and seems to have more torque in his shots

[janitor]

[quote=janitor;5760360]

It doesnt matter if their were men over 200lbs they were all pathetic.


This is just priceless.

Sullivan was known to have little to no skill and he wasnt in particularly good shape.

I have read lots of contemporary reports about Sullivan and the people who actualy saw him fight were not saying that he lacked skill. In fact many said that he was one of the most technicaly brilliant fighters of the era.

No he wasn't inparticularly good shape at the end of his career but at his peak he was a solid 210 lbs.

The workrate of these fights was 1mph,

Considering that they were often in fights to the finish you would expect their workrates to be lower than fighters who only have to go a dozen rounds.


they had poor technique, poor defense, didnt throw combinations, amongst countless faults.


I think that if you actualy studied (as oposed to watched) film of them, and read the contemporary reports you might see it diferently on all these points.

Ruiz would have been 1 of the more skilled boxers in the 1890s and his style of jab and grab would fit perfectly in the era.

Ruiz would have got killed trying to fight that way in this era because the reff would have alowed fighters to maul him in the clinches.

He'd also be HUGE for the time. I'd concede Jeffries may beat him but it would be a long drawn out close fight

I think Corbett would have beaten him as well.

[TommyV]

Barkley was a beast who took guys out wearing bigger gloves and seems to have more torque in his shots

And what about the other point?

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760449]
1. Many similarly sized men have proved more in the ring than Fitz, beating visably more skilled, stronger, faster, higher workrate fighters and bigger men. Countless Examples


Well nobody the size of Fitz has ever established themself as the #1 heavyweight on the planet and thats for sure.


Patterson, Charles, Moore, Jones, Toney, Greb, Jimmy Ellis are Middleweights who have done more at HW than Fitz


A lot of these guys were somewhat bigger than Fitz and were not weighing under the middleweight limit at a fairly advanced age.

Most of them never established themself as the #1 middleweight because they were not fighting at that sort of level when they could make 160.

The only names on that list that I would compare with Fitz are Jones Toney and Greb and none of them did what Fitz did. Only Greb even came close.

2. Yes Froch probably would have knocked out all of Fitz's opposition

Great.

When is he going to do it then?

[TommyV]

Even if we are chucking him in today's era, is it too difficult to except that he might not fairly well given the character and physical intangibles he had? He had great power, strength and he was tough. If we chuck him into today's era, is it inconceivable that he might be able to learn today's modern techniques and do quite well for himself?

[mattdonnellon]

:lol:
100% means 100%. simple that. 100% in 1897 is still 100% in 2009. Every measureable sport has improved, no doubt. But boxing is unique, there was far more boxers in the past, they fought a lot more, talented people went into boxing rather than other sports(crucial IMO) I still think technique, dietary, drugs, video analysis knowlegde means that current boxers are better but Fitz-and others-would be a champions in any era.

[janitor]

Even if we are chucking him in today's era, is it too difficult to except that he might not fairly well given the character and physical intangibles he had? He had great power, strength and he was tough. If we chuck him into today's era, is it inconceivable that he might be able to learn today's modern techniques and do quite well for himself?

Lets say that he dosn't change his technique.

The guy knocked Jack Sharkey and Gus Ruhlin out so brutaly that they had to be carried back to their corners, and it was a single punch or combination in each case.

Any middleweight who has enough power and delivery to do that is going to pose a constant threat to anybodys chin.

At worst he would get somwhere based on his ability as a finisher.

Hell you could even match him against oponents with suspect chins.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760407]
This is just priceless.

1. I have read lots of contemporary reports about Sullivan and the people who actualy saw him fight were not saying that he lacked skill. In fact many said that he was one of the most technicaly brilliant fighters of the era.

2. No he wasn't inparticularly good shape at the end of his career but at his peak he was a solid 210 lbs.

3. Considering that they were often in fights to the finish you would expect their workrates to be lower than fighters who only have to go a dozen rounds.

4. I think that if you actualy studied (as oposed to watched) film of them, and read the contemporary reports you might see it diferently on all these points.

5. Ruiz would have got killed trying to fight that way in this era because the reff would have alowed fighters to maul him in the clinches.

6. I think Corbett would have beaten him as well.

1. Considered skillful by people who hadnt seen modern day skills, Corbett schooled him anyway, Corbett was the most skilled of the old timers but clearly not up to modern standards

2. I havent seen any proof Sulivan was in good shape

3. I expect them to fight at a slower pace, generally I dont think they were as fit

4. The film Ive seen backs up my points, the film isnt the best but judgements can be made

5. Ruiz would be in his element then

6. Corbett possibly beats Ruiz but Im not sure the low hands, backing up in straight line is favourable against a man who has 55lbs weight advantage a good jab and a big right hand. Ruiz could certainly bully Corbett and fight with less caution

[Anglosaxon]

Bob Fitzsimmons natrual ability means he would decimate people with todays training methods.

Writing Bobs achievements off due to todays styles is like writing Robinson or Ali off, I mean its plausible RJJ would have beaten Ali, certainly Lewis would have beaten him.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Well nobody the size of Fitz has ever established themself as the #1 heavyweight on the planet and thats for sure.

2. A lot of these guys were somewhat bigger than Fitz and were not weighing under the middleweight limit at a fairly advanced age.

3. Most of them never established themself as the #1 middleweight because they were not fighting at that sort of level when they could make 160.

4. The only names on that list that I would compare with Fitz are Jones Toney and Greb and none of them did what Fitz did. Only Greb even came close.

5. Great. When is he going to do it then?

1. Mainly because heavyweights have got bigger and many men have given up much more weight than Fitz did in title fights.

2. I dont know if they were naturally bigger but they were all natural middleweights and most bulked up, many fought bigger men, they added more weight, but Roy Jones started competitive contests at 140lbs (Golden Gloves)

3. The likes of Charles/Moore never got their title shots too easily.

4. They were all at their best from 160-168. Patterson was fighting around 167 a year before he became HW champ. Ellis was fighting at MW shortly before his title shot. All arguably beat better heavyweights

I think Ellis is a particularly underrated boxer

5. Froch is fighting men the size of Corbett, who weigh around 180lbs in the ring, the same weight.

[TommyV]

Lets say that he dosn't change his technique.

The guy knocked Jack Sharkey and Gus Ruhlin out so brutaly that they had to be carried back to their corners, and it was a single punch or combination in each case.

Any middleweight who has enough power and delivery to do that is going to pose a constant threat to anybodys chin.

At worst he would get somwhere based on his ability as a finisher.

Hell you could even match him against oponents with suspect chins.

Exactly. And when talking about 'one punch can change a fight' I think Fitzsimmons has a good a case as any fighter in history of being able to turn a fight with one-punch.

I think it's evident that he wouldn't be fighting in the same upright, leaning back, hands-down way nowadays, and I don't see why he wouldn't have similar power nowadays.

But even if we took that version, I still think if you were too chuck him in with some MW contenders, they are going to get hit and hit hard, and all it might take is one punch. I do think that this essence of modern technique is rubbish and comparing them. By that virtue and PowerPuncher's essence, Matt Macklin would be a greater fighter than Bob Fitzsimmons ever was, and that would be plain silly.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760651]
1. Considered skillful by people who hadnt seen modern day skills,


Even if he was only skillfull by the standard of his day that dosn't help the 160 lb guy who you claim is at no particular disadvantage because of his size.

He is still fighting a guy not much smaller than Mike Tyson who is potentialy as good technicaly as he is.

Corbett schooled him anyway,

And Holmes schooled Ali.

Just how shot does Sullivan have to be?


Corbett was the most skilled of the old timers but clearly not up to modern standards


Gene Tunney obviously disagreed after sparring with him.


2. I havent seen any proof Sulivan was in good shape


Then look at some pictures from earlier in his career.


3. I expect them to fight at a slower pace, generally I dont think they were as fit


I can asure you that there is no fightewr today with better conditioning than Fitzsimmons.

His training regime speaks for itself.


4. The film Ive seen backs up my points, the film isnt the best but judgements can be made


The film does back up your points to an extent but the devil is in the detail. You have to consider what the film shows and what it dosn't show.


5. Ruiz would be in his element then


Sombody with the wrestling background of Jim Jeffries would throw Ruiz all over the ring.

Sombody like Jack Johnson would rip his heart out in the clinches.


6. Corbett possibly beats Ruiz but Im not sure the low hands, backing up in straight line is favourable against a man who has 55lbs weight advantage a good jab and a big right hand. Ruiz could certainly bully Corbett and fight with less caution


I think that Corbett gets sold prety far short here.

While he dosn't look all that on the stone age footage of his era, he looks prety good later in life sparring with Gene Tunney and Kid McCoy. Tunney said that he learned pleanty and suggested that Corbett was abetter boxer than Benny Leonard.

Corbett's style was prety unorthodox for his own era and he was just a box of tricks who could have been a nightmare in any era.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5760725]
1. Mainly because heavyweights have got bigger and many men have given up much more weight than Fitz did in title fights.


Have they though?

For most of the 20th century the top contenders were prety much the same size as those in Fitzsimmons era.

The only key difference was that there was no light heavyweight division so anybody over 158 lbs had to fight at heavyweight.


2. I dont know if they were naturally bigger but they were all natural middleweights and most bulked up, many fought bigger men, they added more weight, but Roy Jones started competitive contests at 140lbs (Golden Gloves)


Fitzsimmons was around 130lbs as an amateur.


3. The likes of Charles/Moore never got their title shots too easily.


No but ~Moore had to practicaly kill himself to make light heavy latterly and came in around 200 in catchweight fights.

4. They were all at their best from 160-168. Patterson was fighting around 167 a year before he became HW champ.

Yes but Patterson was only 21 when he got his title shot.


Ellis was fighting at MW shortly before his title shot. All arguably beat better heavyweights

I think Ellis is a particularly underrated boxer


So do I.

5. Froch is fighting men the size of Corbett, who weigh around 180lbs in the ring, the same weight.

I think you might be underestimating Corbett's size here.

I don't know what he did to get down to 184lbs but if you look at him sparring with Gene Tunney he looks like he was a bigger fighter.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Even if he was only skillfull by the standard of his day that dosn't help the 160 lb guy who you claim is at no particular disadvantage because of his size.

2. He is still fighting a guy not much smaller than Mike Tyson who is potentialy as good technicaly as he is.

3. And Holmes schooled Ali. Just how shot does Sullivan have to be?

4. Gene Tunney obviously disagreed after sparring with him.

Then look at some pictures from earlier in his career.

5. I can asure you that there is no fightewr today with better conditioning than Fitzsimmons.

His training regime speaks for itself.

6. The film does back up your points to an extent but the devil is in the detail. You have to consider what the film shows and what it dosn't show.

7. Sombody with the wrestling background of Jim Jeffries would throw Ruiz all over the ring.

8. Sombody like Jack Johnson would rip his heart out in the clinches.

9. I think that Corbett gets sold prety far short here. While he dosn't look all that on the stone age footage of his era, he looks prety good later in life sparring with Gene Tunney and Kid McCoy. Tunney said that he learned pleanty and suggested that Corbett was abetter boxer than Benny Leonard.

Corbett's style was prety unorthodox for his own era and he was just a box of tricks who could have been a nightmare in any era.

1. If you look at the average weight of HW contenders if has gone up decade on decade over the last 120years, that much is fact

2. Tyson was the best technical HW of all time and packed more explosivity into his 220lbs than any man in history. Hardly an apt comparison

3. Most consider Corbet to be an evolution and Corbet himself looks more skilled than most on film. I'd call him an innovater and I'd rate him over Fitz and Jeffries for sure

4/9. Did Tunney really disagree or was he being respectful and friendly to an ex-champ he was perhaps hero worshipping?

5. We've examined this before, there is nothing special about Fitz's mile times, they're pretty slow, I've done much quicker 10milers myself at a higher bodyweight and there are many MWs that will have done much quicker 10milers

6. Do they all start boxing really well when the camera turns off :lol:

7. Maybe, maybe not Jeffries would be facing a man his own size for once, why didnt he throw Johnson all over the ring? Wrestling has allot to do with size strength, more than anything

8. Rip his heart out by squeezing his biceps, Johnson beats Ruiz with his speed, but I think you overrate clinching skills, they arent rocket science

[PowerPuncher]

[quote]
1. Have they though? For most of the 20th century the top contenders were prety much the same size as those in Fitzsimmons era.

2. The only key difference was that there was no light heavyweight division so anybody over 158 lbs had to fight at heavyweight.

3. Fitzsimmons was around 130lbs as an amateur.

4. No but ~Moore had to practicaly kill himself to make light heavy latterly and came in around 200 in catchweight fights.

5. Yes but Patterson was only 21 when he got his title shot.

So do I.

6. I think you might be underestimating Corbett's size here. I don't know what he did to get down to 184lbs but if you look at him sparring with Gene Tunney he looks like he was a bigger fighter.

1. On average contender size has gone up on average

2. Maybe because there didnt need to be a LHW division, a 175lb man was considered a HW then

3. Noted

4. Not in his 20s, when he was killing himself to make 175 he was in his 30s/40s

5. Which is all the more impressive, you dont really have your 'man strength' at 21

6. The man would be giving up 55lbs though, whichever way we spin it. Ruiz's chin would look allot better going against. Ruiz used to be a more exciting fighter before Tua sparked him and he took on punchers on the regular, against Corbett he'd be able to walk his man down somewhat as he attemted to do against Jones. Maybe Corbett could potshot and outspeed him and avoid getting hit like Jones did, but he would be up against it and frankly he isnt as good as Jones

[mattdonnellon]

Sometime I wonder do some people on the classic forum actually understand boxing in its reality not as an abstract. Bob Fitz could step into any gym, any TIME, and be a handful for anybody. From there anything happens but to think that the top, say 50, fighters nowadays are all superior to the champions of the 1900's is patent nonsense. The reverse, of course, is also true. Nobody in the 1900's kicks Pac's and Manny's ass either.

[SLAKKA]

Dident the legendary LA Times sportswriter jim murrey label Fitz "a stork with a backache" after reviewing film?
Dunno if i have to re invent this wheel but doz this newsgroup know about nat fleischer vs jim jacobs from the early/mid 1960 on this very topic??

sweet pea
Yup. Jacobs was Tyson's co-manager back in the early days before his death. He was also an avid historian and posessed a wealth of fight footage, therefore a debate between he and one of the premier boxing historians of all time in Nat Fleischer is something I'd be very interested in hearing about. I would go into more depth about Jacobs's own athletic prowess but that would be besides the point.

I know much about both of the men at hand. You don't have to explain their credentials to me, just what took place amidst their debate.

OK, I guess when you hit 49 and pay attention you start to notice stuff like this, referring to this topic being a re-invention of the wheel that originally flared up many-many yrs ago between Nat Fleisher and Jimmy Jacobs in The Ring Mag. Jimmy J. as he slowly but surely began accumulating his vast fight film collection, grew increasing resentful/pissed at old Nat for making these guys, like Fitz, out to be super fighters (and cashing in $$) that he, JJ., felt clearly WAS NOT (don't shoot the messenger here boys) the case. It began with a public series of screenings/debates before an invited audience of experts..(I recall the legendary Jim Murray L.A. Times participating)..with old Nat being more or less publicly humiliated upon the fighters being screened coz they look so freekin terrible!!! I recall Murray damming Fitzs ring prowess with the following.. "Resembling a stork with a Backache" A surviving member-participant would be J.J.s buddy Nick Beck of whom I could try to give this thread some of his input?

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5761021][quote=janitor;5760793]
1. If you look at the average weight of HW contenders if has gone up decade on decade over the last 120years, that much is fact


Not necisarily.

The average size of contenders has gone up since 1980, but I don't think that the average contender of Fitz's era was necisarily smaller than the average contender of the early 60s.

If the average was lower then it can all be atributed to the lack of a light heavyweight division.


2. Tyson was the best technical HW of all time and packed more explosivity into his 220lbs than any man in history. Hardly an apt comparison


It is a verry apt comparison because Sullivan was all that relative to what had gone before.

Putting a 160lb fighter in the ring with him in his era was a bit like putting one in with Tyson in his era. Before the Corbett fight every one of Sullivans oponents either fought to survive or got destroyed early as far as I can see.


3. Most consider Corbet to be an evolution and Corbet himself looks more skilled than most on film. I'd call him an innovater and I'd rate him over Fitz and Jeffries for sure


Corbett was an inovator but some historians think that Sullivan used the left hook before he did.

Perhaps the word maverick might be more suitable than inovator. I suspect that a lot of fighters might have come unstuck trying to emulate Corbett.


4/9. Did Tunney really disagree or was he being respectful and friendly to an ex-champ he was perhaps hero worshipping?


I get the idea that both Corbett and Fitz made an impression on Tunney.

If you study his writings throughout his life he is dismisive of most fighters of this era but regards these two as technical marvels. He even speculates that they couls have beaten Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis.

I don't think he was just being respectfull.


5. We've examined this before, there is nothing special about Fitz's mile times, they're pretty slow, I've done much quicker 10milers myself at a higher bodyweight and there are many MWs that will have done much quicker 10milers


I have also clocked better times for 10-14 mile runs but where I would come up short is if asked to do it several days in a row.

I know a lot of runners and the only people who put in that kinnd of mileage over prolonged periods are ultramarathon runners training fopr 50 mile races.


6. Do they all start boxing really well when the camera turns off :lol:



Well lets say that you only had four of Vitally Klitschko's fights (which may or may not be his best efforts) and the timing was all over the place, and his cornermen were doing that Charlie Chaplin walk.

Would that be a reliable measure of his ability as a fighter?


7. Maybe, maybe not Jeffries would be facing a man his own size for once, why didnt he throw Johnson all over the ring? Wrestling has allot to do with size strength, more than anything


In many ways a smaller man has the advantage in wrestling.

Jeffries was shot when he faced Johnson and he was up against a prime all time great who was himself a superb wrestler.

8. Rip his heart out by squeezing his biceps, Johnson beats Ruiz with his speed, but I think you overrate clinching skills, they arent rocket science

Bear in mind that wrestling throws were alowed back than as well.

[mattdonnellon]

Choynsky ko'd Johnson, Flynn did the same to Dempsey, Satterfield ko'd Cleveland Williams, Holmes beat Mercer, Foreman beat Moorer, Holyfield and Valuev, Bivins and DeJohn, Sys and Neuhaus and loads more.
If boxing has improved so much, explain these results. Carl Lewis doesn,t beat Bolt.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;5761124]
1. On average contender size has gone up on average


It has not been a linear increase though.

There were a lot more big heavyweights in Jack Johnsons era then Rocky Marciano's era for example.


2. Maybe because there didnt need to be a LHW division, a 175lb man was considered a HW then


There is always a man who needs a light heavyweight division.

Bob Fitzsimmons lost his title to 220lb Jim Jeffries and had no prospect of getting it back, but as soon as the light heavyweight title was created he just helped himself to it.

Charlie Mitchell beat most of the top heavyweight of his era but 210lb John L Sullivan just ripped through him. I am guessing that he could have been a light heavyweight champion if the division had existed.

Joe Choynski never held a world title despite being a pound for pound marvel but he could have been a champion at light heavyweight.

The same is true of Kid McCoy.


4. Not in his 20s, when he was killing himself to make 175 he was in his 30s/40s


To be fair Fitz was in his late 30's when he started seriously campaigning at heavyweight.


5. Which is all the more impressive, you dont really have your 'man strength' at 21


Not wishing to take anything away from Patterson.

6. The man would be giving up 55lbs though, whichever way we spin it. Ruiz's chin would look allot better going against. Ruiz used to be a more exciting fighter before Tua sparked him and he took on punchers on the regular, against Corbett he'd be able to walk his man down somewhat as he attemted to do against Jones. Maybe Corbett could potshot and outspeed him and avoid getting hit like Jones did, but he would be up against it and frankly he isnt as good as Jones

Jones beat him.

Toney basicaly beat him.

Guess what Corbett is going to do.

[guilalah]

Has Bob Fitzsimmons Got A Legit Claim As The Gretest Fighter Of All Time?

You can make a not-unreasonable case.

[Boilermaker]

100% means 100%. simple that. 100% in 1897 is still 100% in 2009. Every measureable sport has improved, no doubt. But boxing is unique, there was far more boxers in the past, they fought a lot more, talented people went into boxing rather than other sports(crucial IMO) I still think technique, dietary, drugs, video analysis knowlegde means that current boxers are better but Fitz-and others-would be a champions in any era.

100% of measurable sports.

Well it is difficult to measure sports like running, swimming etc because conditions have changed so drastically. Running Equipment, Surfaces, and more importantly professionalism and training of athletes (particularly their full time attitudes). Boxing has changed in these areas too, but not necessarilly for the better. Older training regimes at worst are on par with todays and at best require more committment and discipline and are therefore better.

But, Powerpuncher asked the question for one example, so i will give one example of a measurable sport where things ahve not gotten any better. Billiards. Billiard Tables, Pool Cues, Billiard balls etc are largely unadvanced. Lindrum was a professional player from 1911 to 1950. His record break is 4137. He retired as World Champion in 1950. No modern player has got within range of this break (or many of his other records). How is this possible? I thought we evolved physically.

Anyway, this is the first point posed by Powerpuncher. there are probably other examples. For example, i cant see todays medievel jousters competing well with those from the good old days. I wonder also whether Robin Hood might score himself a gold medal in todays archery competitions. The reasons for so called evolution, have nothing to do with time and everything to do with Training and attitude. In running, swimming etc, there is no doubt that things are getting more professional. In boxing, it is not so clear. Older training regimes stack up against todays (even if they are different). The same cannot be said for that of Sprinters, swimmers etc.

People tend to forget that if the evolution theory is to be accepted, then not only does it mean Fitz is no good, then anyone before Muhammed Ali is definitely not top 10 ATG (including Ali and Louis). Actually Holmes really has the same problem. Even guys like Tyson and Holyfield and possibly even Lennox Lewis are starting to become outdated and borderline or below top 10 level, under the Evolution running time theory.

But the point is that Powerpunchers point of every measurable sport progressing has just been demonstrated to be wrong. So, if he could just correct that statement we could move on to the next one and eventually start to address the topic at hand.

[Rise Above]

I think he has a claim. I personally dont have him being number 1 but his resume and achievements are quite impressive. He is definitely in the top ten imo.

[KTFO]

Well? Undisputed Middlweight, Light Heavyweight, and Heavyweight Champion. His resume of wins is also pretty strong.

Does anyone on here think Fitz is actually the greatest fighter of all time?



I think you need some reality check bro. Those title reigns are very disputable.

[Boilermaker]

I think you need some reality check bro. Those title reigns are very disputable.


Which ones?

[GPater11093]

Slakka was interesting about the debate between Fleisher and Jacobs any more on it

[SLAKKA]

Slakka was interesting about the debate between Fleisher and Jacobs any more on it

Thank you, that went up for sweet pea!

[bodhi]

No because he was ina prehistoric era and had very low ability by modern standards. The era had with poor training, poor technique, poor physical performance and poor standards.

Ever heard of Don Lippincott, he was 100m world Record Holder in 1912, running it in 10.6seconds. Is there a case for Don Lippincott being rated over Usain Bolt? Ofcourse not

Bullocks. In history every event has to be judged by the rule of its time. Why should it be different in boxing?

[Flea Man]

How would a fighter deal with Fitz's gloves nowadays? They look kinda' big in the Corbett fight, but I'm led to believe they wouldn't give as much cushion to a fighters hand. Is that correct?

If so, Fitz vs 'A Modern Fighter' lets for instance say Froch. Well, Froch is hittable against anyone, and good as his chin is, and as up for a ruck as he is, he is gonna' let a tough, hard punching man hit him and will he be able to take a shot from Fitz wearing thinner gloves?

If he does take the punch, is he too going to be cautious, throwing the same small amount of punches that Fitz appears to throw.

Look, lets all be honest the footage of Corbett-Fitz doesn't paint either of them in the best light, but then again if all we had of Wilfredo Gomez was the Rocky Lockridge fight we might not be up for believing the hype. I.e the only footage we have of Fitz may be on an off night and then it's one where he stops the man then known as 'The Heavyweight Champion'.

In short, whilst Fitz doesn't look all that great, getting clobbered a century ago is the same as getting clobbered nowadays, even if the punching form was not as refined as some fighters started getting it down to from around Joe Louis onwards. If what I believe about the thinner gloves, I'm assuming that punches held a different kick (if that makes sense) than a punch would nowadays. Not more painful, or more proof of a chin, but a different kinda' pain and as much proof of a chin.

So, if we say Fitz can compete with Froch, surely it must mean he can compete with anyone? If we're opening the door to one fighter surely we can open the door to Fitz competing with any other, around a suitable weight class, say, super-middle? It's not that deep a division, historically, but you're saying he wouldn't beat ANY fighter that has competed since the division was established?

The above rant is in part directed at PowerPuncher, I just wanna' see if he doesn't believe inherent toughness and an ability to move your arms in a way that you land on someones face, head, body, arm, means that ou can't have a fight. Especially when there have been numerous examples of very awkward and unorthodox styles gaining success in boxing, and surely at the very least Fitz is going to provide an awkward and tough test for any fighter?

So, am I right about the gloves?

[Flea Man]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Can anyone shed any light as to whether, despite it being staged to film, whether or not the Corbett fight at the beginning here is genuine or not, or an Exhibition?

Because it really does not show him in a good light whatsoever.

[KTFO]

Which ones?


Quality of competition, title losses, lack of title defenses.

[janitor]

I think you need some reality check bro. Those title reigns are very disputable.

On what basis could they possibly be disputed?

[janitor]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Can anyone shed any light as to whether, despite it being staged to film, whether or not the Corbett fight at the beginning here is genuine or not, or an Exhibition?

Because it really does not show him in a good light whatsoever.

It was an exhibition staged to test in principal, whether a boxing match could be filmed.

It was essentialy a pioneering experiment.

[Boilermaker]

Quality of competition,

Jack Dempsey - All time Great, Reigning world champion, Jim Hall -2nd best fighter in the world at time, Joe Choynski - All time Great light heavy/heavy, Jim Corbett - All time Great Heavyweight, George Gardner - All time Great light heavyweight, Peter Maher, Gus Ruhlin, Tom Sharkey - Top Contenders of the time, Many other top contenders not mentioned.

You are not serious, but it is worth pointing out for those who might actually take notice of you.


title losses,

Jim Jeffries(heavyweight) - Arguably the greatest of all time and undisputably one of the top 20. Both fights were absolute wars, where only Jeffries unbelievable chin saved him from defeat. It isnt to be forgotten also that Fitz had already one the title, and as with every fighter that ever lived most do slip a little once they have the title. It is doubtful that Fitz would be any different.

Philadelphia Jack O Brien (light heavyweight) - All time Great light heavyweight, a good battle where age eventually caught up with Fitz.

Middleweight Title - Never Lost.

lack of title defenses.

Heavyweight - Interestingly, won a claim as champion against Peter Maher, Was robbed by Wyatt Earp when DQd Against Jack Sharkey. Won 2nd Crown against Jim Corbett and like most other champions took the year off and toured with exhibitions etc but did lose his first title defence.

Light Heavy - Beat George Gardner, defended once against Jack O'Brien and lost his rematch.

Middleweight Title - Held from 1891 to 1897. Defended too many times for me to be bothered to count, also scored too many KOs against opponents during this time for me to count, even if i could be bothered, And fought even more exhibitions, against a variety of great fighters, at a time where exhibitions were often described as such in name only due to boxing being outlawed.

[dublynflya]

Even if you are correct is that really the way to decide what quantifies greatness? How modern training compares to less modern training?

I'm so exhausted hearing this sprinting comparison and explaininng why it's nonsensical I'm not even going to touch it. Someone will be along in a minute no doubt.

:good Well said!

[dublynflya]

Jack Dempsey - All time Great, Reigning world champion, Jim Hall -2nd best fighter in the world at time, Joe Choynski - All time Great light heavy/heavy, Jim Corbett - All time Great Heavyweight, George Gardner - All time Great light heavyweight, Peter Maher, Gus Ruhlin, Tom Sharkey - Top Contenders of the time, Many other top contenders not mentioned.

You are not serious, but it is worth pointing out for those who might actually take notice of you.


Jim Jeffries(heavyweight) - Arguably the greatest of all time and undisputably one of the top 20. Both fights were absolute wars, where only Jeffries unbelievable chin saved him from defeat. It isnt to be forgotten also that Fitz had already one the title, and as with every fighter that ever lived most do slip a little once they have the title. It is doubtful that Fitz would be any different.

Philadelphia Jack O Brien (light heavyweight) - All time Great light heavyweight, a good battle where age eventually caught up with Fitz.

Middleweight Title - Never Lost.


Heavyweight - Interestingly, won a claim as champion against Peter Maher, Was robbed by Wyatt Earp when DQd Against Jack Sharkey. Won 2nd Crown against Jim Corbett and like most other champions took the year off and toured with exhibitions etc but did lose his first title defence.

Light Heavy - Beat George Gardner, defended once against Jack O'Brien and lost his rematch.

Middleweight Title - Held from 1891 to 1897. Defended too many times for me to be bothered to count, also scored too many KOs against opponents during this time for me to count, even if i could be bothered, And fought even more exhibitions, against a variety of great fighters, at a time where exhibitions were often described as such in name only due to boxing being outlawed.

:good A superb post and a great read!

[KTFO]

Jack Dempsey - All time Great, Reigning world champion, Jim Hall -2nd best fighter in the world at time, Joe Choynski - All time Great light heavy/heavy, Jim Corbett - All time Great Heavyweight, George Gardner - All time Great light heavyweight, Peter Maher, Gus Ruhlin, Tom Sharkey - Top Contenders of the time, Many other top contenders not mentioned.

You are not serious, but it is worth pointing out for those who might actually take notice of you.


Jim Jeffries(heavyweight) - Arguably the greatest of all time and undisputably one of the top 20. Both fights were absolute wars, where only Jeffries unbelievable chin saved him from defeat. It isnt to be forgotten also that Fitz had already one the title, and as with every fighter that ever lived most do slip a little once they have the title. It is doubtful that Fitz would be any different.

Philadelphia Jack O Brien (light heavyweight) - All time Great light heavyweight, a good battle where age eventually caught up with Fitz.

Middleweight Title - Never Lost.


Heavyweight - Interestingly, won a claim as champion against Peter Maher, Was robbed by Wyatt Earp when DQd Against Jack Sharkey. Won 2nd Crown against Jim Corbett and like most other champions took the year off and toured with exhibitions etc but did lose his first title defence.

Light Heavy - Beat George Gardner, defended once against Jack O'Brien and lost his rematch.

Middleweight Title - Held from 1891 to 1897. Defended too many times for me to be bothered to count, also scored too many KOs against opponents during this time for me to count, even if i could be bothered, And fought even more exhibitions, against a variety of great fighters, at a time where exhibitions were often described as such in name only due to boxing being outlawed.



Exaggeration at its best. After all those meaningless words Fitz's resume still doesn't look better.

[janitor]

Exaggeration at its best. After all those meaningless words Fitz's resume still doesn't look better.

Is that another thing that is so obvious that no logic is required to substantiate it?

[KTFO]

Fitz def didn’t achieve enough to call him Goat. Wins against Jack Dempsay and James J Corbett are not enough. After he won the middleweight title against Dempsey, only two title defenses followed against Jim Hall and Dan Creedon, two boxers who are unknown more or less. Fitz gained the Heavyweight title against Peter Maher and lost it to Tom Sharkey in the following bout. Fitz won it back against James J Corbett and lost it again to James J Jeffries. The attempt to gain it back against Jeffries failed, maybe the reason to try a shot at the Lightheavy-title against George Gardner. After he lost to Philadelphia Jack O’Brian he never tried a shot at the LH-title again. So where tf does that claim for Goat come from? Regarding quality of opponents: who tf is Jim Hall, Dan Creedon, Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, George Gardner, Jack O’Brian? Those opponents are no ATGs or HOFers like Jack Dempsay, although Dempsay’s resume’s pure myth rather than achievement. Fitz’s resume is nothing else than average.

[janitor]

[quote=KTFO;5775680]Regarding quality of opponents: who tf is Jim Hall, Dan Creedon, Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, George Gardner, Jack O’Brian?

If you don't know who any one of these fighters was then your knowledge of the era is seriously lacking.

They were all varry big players at the time.

Those opponents are no ATGs or HOFers like Jack Dempsay,

Actualy O'Brien is in the Hall of Fame.

although Dempsay’s resume’s pure myth rather than achievement.

You mean that you don't know enough about the era to make any asesment of his resume one way or the other?

[janitor]

After he won the middleweight title against Dempsey, only two title defenses followed against Jim Hall and Dan Creedon, two boxers who are unknown more or less.

Fitzsimmons fought 33 times while he was midleweight title and his title would have been on the line in any of those fights where both men weighed under the middleweight limit.

Since the information surounding many of these fights has been lost we cannot readily say how many times he defended his middleweight title.

[BlueApollo]

Sometime I wonder do some people on the classic forum actually understand boxing in its reality not as an abstract. Bob Fitz could step into any gym, any TIME, and be a handful for anybody. From there anything happens but to think that the top, say 50, fighters nowadays are all superior to the champions of the 1900's is patent nonsense. The reverse, of course, is also true. Nobody in the 1900's kicks Pac's and Manny's ass either.

But therein lies the problem whenever these questions come up. To place a pre 1920s fighter into any kind of modern context always requires a concession one way or another. "If so and so wore different gloves" or "If so and so was going fewer rounds" and so forth and so on. It becomes an apples and oranges game.

I think to question their toughness and their stamina, and to a certain degree their power, is patent nonsense. I think to doubt how effective they'd be plunked down cold turkey with their actual styles and conditioning under modern rules, and at the highest levels of the sport, isn't nonsense. Unfortunately that's what we have to do unless we want to launch into a whole world of complete hypotheticals. In this sense history does work against them, simply because the balance of great fighters fall into an era where we have the tools to compare them with some accuracy (film, consistent rules, etc.).

I think the best we can do is say that these men were great for their time, and include them somewhere on our all time lists. I don't think you can possibly call them the greatest who ever lived, there just isn't enough to go on.

[janitor]

What the people who are most critical of Fitzsimmons fail to apreciate is how much of his record has been lost.

Here is the boxrec resume of Jack Hickey, final record 0-2-0.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

If you read the contemporary press then you learn that Hickey was the Irish Champion and that many expected him to give Fitzsimmons a close fight or even bring about an upset.
[Only registered and activated users can see links] [Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

So much for boxrec.

Now here is the boxrec record of Con Coughlin, final record 1-5-0.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The guy would have been forgotten by history if he had not died from his injuries when he fought Fitzsimmons. He was at the verry least a fringe contender and a touted prospect.

This is how the contemporary press viewed him.

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

So how much more will we find if we continue digging?

[mcvey]

Fitz def didn’t achieve enough to call him Goat. Wins against Jack Dempsay and James J Corbett are not enough. After he won the middleweight title against Dempsey, only two title defenses followed against Jim Hall and Dan Creedon, two boxers who are unknown more or less. Fitz gained the Heavyweight lost it to Tom Sharkey in the title against Peter Maher and following bout. Fitz won it back against James J Corbett and lost it again to James J Jeffries. The attempt to gain it back against Jeffries failed, maybe the reason to try a shot at the Lightheavy-title against George Gardner. After he lost to Philadelphia Jack O’Brian he never tried a shot at the LH-title again. So where tf does that claim for Goat come from? Regarding quality of opponents: who tf is Jim Hall, Dan Creedon, Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, George Gardner, Jack O’Brian? Those opponents are no ATGs or HOFers like Jack Dempsay, although Dempsay’s resume’s pure myth rather than achievement. Fitz’s resume is nothing else than average.

Fitz was robbed against Sharkey ,he kod him with a legit bodyshot ,but referee Earp called it foul.
Fitz was 40 years old when he won the Lhy crown,when he lost to O Brien he was 42,that's why he didnt get another shot.
If you don't know who those names are you asked about the fault is in your lack of knowledge, not Fitz's lack of credentials.

[JimmyShimmy]

Hah, this is ridiculous.

You can't say a guy was 'unknown' if you've not even bothered to follow the papers of the time.

Dan Creedon was not a bad fighter, nothing spectacular, but Fitz blasted him.

Jim Hall on the other hand was very good indeed, very similar to Fitzy boy himself with his skill and power of punch.

Nonpareil was a great performance but ol' Jacky boy at that point was coming down heavy with TB.

[janitor]

Dan Creedon was not a bad fighter, nothing spectacular, but Fitz blasted him.


Creedon was a "name fighter" even when he was fighting past his prime.

If Joe Walcott or whever beat him into a heap they were always praised for it.

[JimmyShimmy]

Creedon was a "name fighter" even when he was fighting past his prime.

If Joe Walcott or whever beat him into a heap they were always praised for it.

In comparison to his other wins.

But yes, Fitz had the punchers problem of making fighters look distinctively average. His fights with Creedon and Hall were one-punch affairs.

[KTFO]

Fitz was robbed against Sharkey ,he kod him with a legit bodyshot ,but referee Earp called it foul.
Fitz was 40 years old when he won the Lhy crown,when he lost to O Brien he was 42,that's why he didnt get another shot.
If you don't know who those names are you asked about the fault is in your lack of knowledge, not Fitz's lack of credentials.


Bullshit. Wyatt Earp knew all those dirty tricks of boxers. Fitz should've stuck to head-shots if he wasn't able to land clean body-shots.
Fitz knew he had no business in the heavyweight division, and he had no business in the lightheavy-division either.
My knowledge is brilliant. Those boxers are no ATGs and no HOFers, hence chickenshit.

[janitor]

[quote=KTFO;5777018]Bullshit. Wyatt Earp knew all those dirty tricks of boxers.

Did the fact that he had made a large bet on Sharkey not bias his judging at all?


Fitz should've stuck to head-shots if he wasn't able to land clean body-shots.


The body shot was all too clean.

Possibly one of the best in history.


Fitz knew he had no business in the heavyweight division, and he had no business in the lightheavy-division either.


He had enough business in both divisions to hold the undisputed title.

My knowledge is brilliant.

O.K

Those boxers are no ATGs and no HOFers, hence chickenshit.

So every boxer who is not a hall of famer is useless.

How many Hall of Famers did Larry Holmes beat that didn't have Parkinsons disease?

[McGrain]

There are LOCK hall of fame fighters from around this time that will never, ever make that institution.

[mcvey]

Bullshit. Wyatt Earp knew all those dirty tricks of boxers. Fitz should've stuck to head-shots if he wasn't able to land clean body-shots.
Fitz knew he had no business in the heavyweight division, and he had no business in the lightheavy-division either.
My knowledge is brilliant. Those boxers are no ATGs and no HOFers, hence chickenshit.

I am not prepared to argue with you.
I beleive you to be either a wind up merchant, or a fool ,probably both.
I haven't read a post by you, that has convinced me that you would not be more suited to another subject,preferably one that you have a rudimentary grasp of.
Janitor can continue to embarrass you if he wishes, my time is too valuable.

[KTFO]

I am not prepared to argue with you.
I beleive you to be either a wind up merchant, or a fool ,probably both.
I haven't read a post by you, that has convinced me that you would not be more suited to another subject,preferably one that you have a rudimentary grasp of.
Janitor can continue to embarrass you if he wishes, my time is too valuable.


:rofl

......then why this post? I detect a hidden nuthugger. I pity you foo'.

[The Funny Man 7]

I personally have him at 12, but you could easily argue for top 10. Its been said so many times before, but to make that jump from middle weight to winning the championship against an ATG in Corbett is maybe the most impressive feat in boxing history. Ultimately his legacy does suffer by the lack of quality footage, which is unfornuate.

[Boilermaker]

One of the intriguing things about Fitz is at what point did he actually become the best prizefighter in the world and how long was he the best fighter in the world. Technically the corbett win was his recognition, but if you accept that he was a better fighter than corbett and had his number, is it possible that Fitz was actually the best fighter in the world for a much longer period. Arguably, in 1892 when Corbett took over from John L as the number 1 man, Fitz was possibly as good or better than Corbett so that gives him a good 7 years as the best fighter in the world (although like with Tysons pre spinks early reigns he would not have been recognised as such).

this begs the question. At what time if ever could Fitz had fought and defeated John L Sullivan? When you think about it, Fitzys reign as a heavy (certainly if they had multiple titles like today) could very easily have been just as impressive as the two Klitchskos reigns are today (on paper). When you consider that he was actually a middleweight (not a bulked up middleweight) for most of this reign and a Supermiddleweight for all of it, and then you factor in what he did when ancient and an alcoholic, and even when pre prime and a lightweight, you start to improve even further (if that is even possible for many of us) the pound for pound legacy of the great Bob Fitzsimmons.

[mattdonnellon]

Well when he beat Maher in 1892 he became a legit top HW contender. Sullivan, Jackson, Corbett, Slavin and Goddard were the top men at that precise time. Yes he could consievably have beaten any of them, with Jackson the big ask.

[China_hand_Joe]

Heavyweights deserve more respect.

They are after all the best fighters in the world when you ignore weightclasses.

So perhaps you can place him above Armstrong.



Ali was the greatest boxer ever though, that is a lock, simply because those who don't even follow boxing will decide that in the end.

[McGrain]

Well when he beat Maher in 1892 he became a legit top HW contender. Sullivan, Jackson, Corbett, Slavin and Goddard were the top men at that precise time. Yes he could consievably have beaten any of them, with Jackson the big ask.

Yeah, I don't think Fitzsimmons would be beating Jackson.

[mr. magoo]

Well, most of the classic forum refuses to rate Roy Jones as a top 10 ATG , even though he matched Fitz's claim to having won belts at middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Therefore, if these things don't buy Jones a top spot then they don't make Fitz the GOAT.

[McGrain]

Well, most of the classic forum refuses to rate Roy Jones as a top 10 ATG , even though he matched Fitz's claim to having won belts at middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Therefore, if these things don't buy Jones a top spot then they don't make Fitz the GOAT.


Undisputed #1 at three weights.

[essexboy]

1. Only because it proves the point that athletes in every sport have generally improved. Find me a measurable sport that hasnt significantly improved in the last 100years, you can't and you won't

2. Boxing was just garbage in the 1900s. It was in its infancy, men were smaller, weaker, less skilled. Then men Fotz beat were rubbish, they wouldnt be top 10 today and Fitz was rubbish himself. Whats more black men werent given equal opportunity and it was a mainly an American sport

3. Ruiz beats Corbett and Fitz, boxings moved on

4. It is correct, and fact is never worthless, the boxing skill of those men were sub-standard, Toney picks them all apart, Pavlik might well beat Fitz and Corbett himself

What a load of horseshit.

[frankenfrank]

What a load of horseshit.
he tells the truth except it was a british sport as well , after all it began in england.

in fact :
1. ola afolabi beats them all.
2. see fitz's losses to see his worth. he was powerful but severely flawed.
3. how can one expect that no innovations / improvements will occur in
about 120 years ?

[KTFO]

Well, most of the classic forum refuses to rate Roy Jones as a top 10 ATG , even though he matched Fitz's claim to having won belts at middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Therefore, if these things don't buy Jones a top spot then they don't make Fitz the GOAT.



Correct.

[mr. magoo]

Undisputed #1 at three weights.

Still doesn't make him the GOAT.

BTW, is that you hiding in that tent in your avatar?

[godking]

Well? Undisputed Middlweight, Light Heavyweight, and Heavyweight Champion. His resume of wins is also pretty strong.

Does anyone on here think Fitz is actually the greatest fighter of all time?No
A lot of posters in the Classic section let romanticism nostalgia and a desire to believe in legends weigh in their decision where to rank fighters.

[essexboy]

he tells the truth except it was a british sport as well , after all it began in england.

in fact :
1. ola afolabi beats them all.
2. see fitz's losses to see his worth. he was powerful but severely flawed.
3. how can one expect that no innovations / improvements will occur in
about 120 years ?

So you think Ola Afolabi should be rated higher than Fitz as an ATG?

I agree improvements have been made but thats irrelevant, Fitz was great in his own time, he helped make those innovations you're speaking of. Pavlik may very well beat him head to head but in his era Fitz was undoubtedly the greater fighter.

[Pusnuts]

Hes top 10 ATG heavyweight easily, he was a beast, pasty and chicken legged but a beast even so

Sure hed get wasted but many fighters today but for his time he was a very bad mutha

[janitor]

Well, most of the classic forum refuses to rate Roy Jones as a top 10 ATG , even though he matched Fitz's claim to having won belts at middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Therefore, if these things don't buy Jones a top spot then they don't make Fitz the GOAT.

Winning belts is one thing but establishing yourself as "the man" is another.

Did Jones ueoquivocaly establish himself as the top fighter in any weight class?

[Sweet Pea]

No
A lot of posters in the Classic section let romanticism nostalgia and a desire to believe in legends weigh in their decision where to rank fighters.That could be it, or it could be that their knowledge of these men overshadows your own, therefore they've have come to different conclusions about them than you would.

[mr. magoo]

Winning belts is one thing but establishing yourself as "the man" is another.

Did Jones ueoquivocaly establish himself as the top fighter in any weight class?


Not necessarily, but I do think that for the most part, he beat the best available men in those classes, save for maybe one or two here and there. He was very dominant in the fashion that he defeated his foes, and for a while was thought of by many as the best in the world pound for pound. He certainly has my vote as best fighter of the 90's. In either case, I don't think that either Jones or Fitz are the greatest.

[Sweet Pea]

Not necessarily, but I do think that for the most part, he beat the best available men in those classes, save for maybe one or two here and there.At Heavyweight?

[janitor]

At Heavyweight?

We could argue that at light heavyweight, he was clearly the man when he held all the belts, lineage be damned.

[Boilermaker]

Yeah, I don't think Fitzsimmons would be beating Jackson.

Why?

Fitz seemed to beat better fighters in a quicker and more convincing manner.

From memory, didnt they fight a short exhibition close to primes. I wonder how that one went down (if my memory is correct).

[KTFO]

Why?

Fitz seemed to beat better fighters in a quicker and more convincing manner.

From memory, didnt they fight a short exhibition close to primes. I wonder how that one went down (if my memory is correct).


Yes. Yes I remember that too. Fitz was sacked more or less.

[janitor]

Why?

Fitz seemed to beat better fighters in a quicker and more convincing manner.

From memory, didnt they fight a short exhibition close to primes. I wonder how that one went down (if my memory is correct).

Jim Corbett claimed (to Nat Fleischer) that he watched an exhibition between Jackson and Fitzsimmons and said that it was like a Professor giving a pupil a lesson.

Fleischer also claimed that Fitzsimmons told him that Peter Jackson was the greatest fighter that ever breathed and that he had purpousfully avoided him.

Of course against these factors we have to consider that Fitzsimmons would likley have met Jackson in his own prime when Jackson was on the slide.

[Boilermaker]

Jim Corbett claimed (to Nat Fleischer) that he watched an exhibition between Jackson and Fitzsimmons and said that it was like a Professor giving a pupil a lesson.

Fleischer also claimed that Fitzsimmons told him that Peter Jackson was the greatest fighter that ever breathed and that he had purpousfully avoided him.

Of course against these factors we have to consider that Fitzsimmons would likley have met Jackson in his own prime when Jackson was on the slide.

Very interesting.

Jackson is such an interesting case. He was so highly rated by contemporaries, but his record doesnt really bear out the class and have the high string of contenders you would expect from such a well respected fighter. He doesnt really have many big name victims on his list. He also struggled life and death with Goddard, only drew with Corbett, was KOd by Bill Farnan etc. Yet so many of his time rated him the Greatest ever. The only thing i can think of is that his listed NDs and exhibitions were more like dominant decisions where he may have even carried his fighters, that there were many, many unreported fights and/or that there were a lot of very, very good fighters that he fought, who we simply cant appreciate their careers due to lost information and they were a lot better than their known record indicates. I really think that the career of Peter Jackson is the next fighter who i would like to see Pollacked, after the Marvin Hart book.

Looking solely at common results, Fitz seemed to get the business done that little bit quicker and more efficiently. In particular, the most telling common result is the Corbett one, where in the biggest fight of both careers (pretty much prime for prime against a prime for prime ATG) Fitz did the better of the two, as far as i can see.

[McGrain]

Still doesn't make him the GOAT.

BTW, is that you hiding in that tent in your avatar?


It sure is/was.

[Flea Man]

It sure is/was.

Damn, I missed a chance to see what/who you are:?

Guess you'll have to go on being a mythical Randall Flagg-esque omnipotent force for now:rofl

[McGrain]

Damn, I missed a chance to see what/who you are:?

Guess you'll have to go on being a mythical Randall Flagg-esque omnipotent force for now:rofl


:lol:

There are pictures of me in the lounge picture thread if you're that interested. You stalker.

[Flea Man]

:lol:

There are pictures of me in the lounge picture thread if you're that interested. You stalker.


:lol: I think I'll keep the mystique if thats alright. Still reeling from the fact Pea is the same age as me.

[McGrain]

:lol: I think I'll keep the mystique if thats alright. Still reeling from the fact Pea is the same age as me.

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that he isn't black.

[Flea Man]

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that he isn't black.

Yeah, I did kinda' get used to the fact that he looked like Sweet Pea:lol:

was all the more jarring when I found out otherwise.

[GPater11093]

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that he isn't black.

I still imagine him as Sweet Pea. As for McGrain i always imagine you as about 60-70 years old and the way you always mention Mrs McGrain you remind me of Paw Broon