Originally Posted by Manassa
Some people even rate him #1.
Can't knock the first man to win three titles - he'd be higher if I thought his average level of opposition was higher, although as it turns out, for his time, Fitzsimmons was fighting some very good boxers. And as nothing more than a small light heavyweight (champion at forty), he was faring very well as a heavyweight. In his prime it was only really Jim Jeffries who beat him.
If you speak to the right people, they'll tell you Fitzsimmons was a top twenty heavyweight, a top five light heavyweight and a top ten middleweight.
Ali was great - he beat four top twenty heavyweights, and that's why he's rated as high as he is. But I think certain opponents such as Ken Norton get highly overrated. Freddie Dawson, an opponent of Ike Williams, was relatively as good or better than Norton and Williams went 3-0-1 against him. But of course, Norton is more noteworthy for whatever reason.
But this about being as objective as you can within a highly subjective area. I know, it's hard to rate Ali outside of the top ten - but certain fighters, less famous fighters, accomplished more.
valid explanation, but then I expected nothing les from you
However, I'm still not convinced. This is mainly down to the footage of Fitz-Corbett (not great, admittedly, and Fitz was old) really NOT impressing me.
But then, opinions are what these lists are all about
I think there is a certain contingency (on this forum) who make Fitz to be superhuman. Not suggesting you are Manassa, the post of yours I'm quoting shows that you're objective....hmmm hard to explain, even with all the explanations I've read bigging up Fitzs competition and his high KO percentage.....dya know what I mean?
I go on resume plus skillset (I.e despite his half-decent resume I'm not big on Ottke, for a rather obvious an time-saving example) but despite Fitz's impressive stats (especially considering the weight he often gave up) I don't feel he should be given allowances due to the time he fought in (referring to your point about giving him kudos for being first man to win three titles) whilst tougher I don't feel the fighters then were as good as say, from 25-50. The likes of Charles, Johnson, Moore etc etc were for me the pinnacle of the sweet science, and I feel Corbett would lose to all of them. Notsure how Fitz would fate, though I'm sure someoe will come on to tell me je could beat Foreman, Kid Dynamite and Ali on the same night
Am I being unfair?