Top 10 head to head under 190lb all time?

Fitzsimmons does not belong on this type of list. He was completely and uniquely a fighter of his own time. He does not have the ability to beat the better boxer types, nor the durable swarmers. He's basically an inferior Moore as far as I'm concerned.

No Holyfield is a big omission Suzie, but you addressed it. Was John L really a sub 190 pound fighter? I always took him as a decently sized HW that was more often 200+ than 190.

 

exactly, i don't want anyone to think that i don't think that fitz is great but from what i see, i wouldn't favor him to do well. when i see sam langford on film from around that era, i feel completely different.

 

Fitz demolished allcomers in his era, all sizes, all styles. He is one the most talented punchers the sport has ever seen. He absolutely belongs on this list. He KO'd the better boxer type in Corbett and O'Brien and the durable swarmer in Sharkey. And plenty of other elite/great fighters in Dempsey, Gardner, Ruhlin, Choynski...

Per Adam Pollock's excellent Sullivan book, his weight during his prime was usually inflated in newspapers. He was in fact best under 190.

 

A physically prime Sullivan, likely the one that won the title from Ryan was in the lower to mid 180's ... he was almost never in prime condition after ... astonishing considering the Kilran fight ..

Fitz excelled against swarmers and would have no problem mixing it up w a Dempsey or Marciano and would have a punchers chance at least against either .. great boxers can give anyone trouble ..

 

Regarding Haye

1)

2) He fought in the 200lb CW era, only fought below 190 once and this is not same day era like everyone else on the list, he doesn't qualify. He wouldn't even be top 5 h2h in modern CW era ffs

 

He was getting schooled by Corbett. Fitzsimmon's was a force from 160-175. He had an incredibly punch and was very clever in finding a way to land that punch despite his limitations in skills & ability.. His style was very much adapted to his time. The way he fought would simply not acclimate well toward a more modernized era of fighting. Bigger gloves, less rounds, and more of an emphasis and skills and abilities and his shortcomings are going to be even more heightened. Corbett who handled him for 20+ rounds wouldn't make my top 30 for sub 190 pounders. Although his greatness is appreciated in his own time and context. Fitzsimmons went 1-1 with Sharkey.

Puncher's chance as in 1 out of 10, maybe. That is more of a fantasy than Marciano's chances against Liston (Which you completely wrote off).

 

what kind of gloves would these guys be using

 

As was Marciano against Walcott the first time around. How did that work out for Joe?

Actually, Fitz was noted by his opponents and contemporaries for being quite skilled! He was expert in setting traps and delivering a wide array of shifty shots. Sure, his style was adapted to his time. Should he have adapted it to a century later? Who's to say Roy Jones, as good as he was in the 1990's, would do well against Fitz under an 1890's ruleset?

Fitz didn't just have a good, or very good, punch. He basically KO'd the best of the two highest weight divisions before catching a title at a third once it was created. He was unGodly powerful. Whenever anyone dispatches that many of his contemporaries, when no one else was achieving near the same results, we must take notice and concede that his skills are probably translatable across eras.

 

Who were the black fighters he ducked?

 

Langford and Johnson were later (tho obviously Johnson KO'd a decrepit Fitz) but both were quite enamored with Fitzsimmons.

Jackson would seem a natural as they both fought down under and sparred at least once. Jackson was a bit faded but Fitz wanted nothing to do with him afterward (few did). However, Corbett, who was able to evade Fitz's power for a time, commented that Fitz was best he ever faced, including a prime Jackson. Anyhow, by the time Fitz got the title Jackson was essentially done.

 

Jackson won the colored title in 1888; John "run from the blackies" Sullivan was champ from 1882 - 1892. He could've easily fought him if he had the ****ing stones. Just quoting here:

"On 21 May 1891, in Benicia, California Jackson fought the future world champion James Corbett because the reigning title-holder, John L. Sullivan, would not fight him because he was black."

 

Picking purely on a paper record is a bit autistic. Try to watch fights and judge their skillset.

Why would I have a problem picking haye over fitz and corbett? I'd probably favour him over conn and spinks also.