Is Bob Fitzsimmons Top 5 P4P?

Hi Gents newbie here just thought i'd enter the board on the subject of one of my favourite fighters. (get the insults out of the way!!)
I think for legacy Ruby Rob could certainly lay claim to a top 5 ATG spot,although that would possibly diminish head to ahead going against some of the more modern greats.
His power though must have been astonishing, and I think his win over Corbett the way he accomplished it is one of the great performances of all time.
He got beat up the first half of the fight was floored, then to come back and knock out an excellent champion like Corbett with a body shot after 14 hard rounds,as basically a super middleweight giving away nearly 20 pounds was really something.

 

I'll ask for the second time, what was Fitz worse at and by how much, comparing the Corbett fight and the 2nd Jeffries one, other than age?

Yes, a punch is a punch. A pivot blow gives the defender more time to get prepared for it, and is robbing the attacking boxer of accuracy and timing, because he can't see the target until the very last moment. And he can't get any more power into the punch than he could generate by a swing.

You were talking as if it was only Fitz who was inflicting punishment to Jeffries, and Jeff was able to come up with a miracle one-punch KO out of the blue, after landing nothing of notice during previous 7+ rounds.

Same age and stature? How do you imagine them being the same stature? Increase Fitz proportionally, both his weight and height? So a 170 pounds and nearly 6 feet Fitz (just 1 or 2 centimeters shorter than Jeffries) becomes a 210 pounder standing 7 feet 4 inches tall (increasing height by the same ratio as the weight)?
Fitz was 27 years of age when he met Dempsey, and it took him over 12 rounds of severe punishment to stop the smaller opponent. So you think that 27-years-old Fitz would have done much better vs Jeffries in 1902? Fitz himself admitted he had improved compared to his younger version, and would have KO'd the younger himself.

It's pretty useless to compare the rankings of fighters with completely different styles by comparing who beat whom in how many rounds.

Corbett had been far in the lead vs Fitzsimmons, outpointing, outpunching, outgeneralling and outpunishing him. Why are you trying to use Corbett to prove Fitz's superiority over Jeff?

Sharkey was completely ruined before meeting Fitz for the 2nd time. Ruhlin, despite not being a powerful puncher, had administered severe beating to Sharkey, basically ending his career. Fitz' 2nd win over Tom was totally meaningless.

Jeffries had had only 6 fights (counting only the confirmed ones) by the time he met Choynski. Do you want to hold Fitzsimmons' losses to Mick Dooley against him?

 

That's not the issue at all. Jeffries had a huge weight advantage and even that barely saved him second time round.

 

What does Jeffries' weight have to do with getting his face cut to ribbons (like cutting it with the knife, according to Jeff's own words)? Fitzsimmons didn't stagger him once, Jeff was perfectly strong at the finish.

 

So arguing Fitz' and Jeffries' hw rankings is an off-topic when discussing Fitz's P4P status? Ok.
I'm not against finishing this discussion, but certainly not because it was going off-topic. Thankfully, Adam's books are saving a lot of time when debating these things, the only drawback being you can't search the contents of the books for key words and copy/paste the results.

 

In my mind there is a very small category right at the top of the pantheon of greats reserved for guys like Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons, etc. Guys who were incredibly successful across a wide range of weights, styles, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that Fitz belongs in that category. He was clearly thought of that way for decades after his career and I dont really see any valid argument that he shouldnt be rated that highly. I admit that he looks crude on film (and a correction for Senya: Fitz was clearly wearing on Corbett in the second half of their fight. He was losing but Corbett was slowing markedly. To paint it as a totally one sided affair completely ignores the second half of the fight. This is supported by both the film and the reports) but he was clearly very strong and hit very hard, within the style in which he fought I see nothing inconsistent about that. He walked you down and looked for a spot to land his punches. Its hard to argue with the results. Furthermore, 12 years later when he fought Bill Lang he was still utilizing that same style in an era where the sport had supposedly advanced quite a bit and despite losing he was still in there hunting for that one punch for twelve rounds. Lang wasnt a world beater but it shows that even at nearly 50 years old and fighting a man 20 years his junior, 15 years past his prime, after a year of inactivity and outweighed by 30 pounds he could still make a go of it. That speaks to something for me.

 

Yes, Corbett was tiring, but he still was winning most of the rounds according to round-by-round description. 7th round was Corbett's, 8th was his clearly. 9th round the writers were divided, probably a shade for Fitz. 10th round the majority gave to Corbett. 11th was Fitzsimmons's round. Jim won the 12th round, and at the very least had it even in the 13th, more likely taking that round by a shade.

 

Sorry but I see nothing lucky about a guy stalking forward, wearing down his opponent, and knocking him out with a left hook to the stomach as soon as he sees an opening. To argue that it was just a coincidence that Fitz landed that punch when he had been tiring Corbett for 6 rounds prior to that point is really taking a lot of credit away from the man that deserved. I have more of an issue with Fitz not giving him a rematch than I do with how he won the title.

 

There's a lot of luck in how you land your punch. It's not like all you need to do is to land to the stomach to KO the opponent, or land to the head and the fight is finished. There's a reason why there is "the point of the jaw" and the "solar plexus punch", etc. that are relatively hard to land on correctly and cleanly. It's not like Fitz was landing punches to solar plexus at will in every second fight. The ending was unexpected at that particular point for many experts. They also saw Corbett tiring, but didn't expect it to that that way right there.
And one of the fighters getting tired is nothing new, it didn't always lead to them losing the fight, not even fights to the finish, where a lot of things could happen, including hand injuries. So while I'd favor Fitz to win that fight even without the solar plexus blow, I'd be willing to give Corbett the benefit of the doubt.

Fitz was a super middleweight or a light heavyweight when beating ranked heavyweights (most of the ranked ones beaten by him being smw or blown-up lhw as well), not a middleweight.
Fitz doesn't have a win over O'Brien. He also has a loss to the same Hall.

 

When you practice those same punches for decades… when you routinely knock guys out in short order… the **** there is any luck.

 

Decades? Knock out routinely with that particular punch? What are you talking about?