Is Bob Fitzsimmons Top 5 P4P?

If you go further back in this thread, you would see my another explanation. John L. Sullivan was considered by many (not just the NPG) only the champion of America, and his case wasn't much different from Dempsey. Jim Corbett also was considered to be only American champion by some experts. It's not the 21st century standard, it'd an obvious double standard during that epoch. Some experts continued to claim that John L. was never a world champion during at least several decades of the 20th century too.

 

I realize that Senya but the problem is that due to your strict dogmatic adherence to a code that by your own admission was NOT universal you render not just John L. a regional champion but then Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Burns, Johnson, etc. The lineage has to start somewhere and as most with any common sense realize there was an early time in that lineage when a champion was essentially recognized as a world champion not because he fought every champion of every country in the world but because he had the strongest claim at the time that the title was being "invented" to being the best fighter IN THE WORLD at that weight. Eventually even the naysayers caught up which is how the lineage was even established. Lets say that the first "world" champion was Tommy Burns. Why? Because he fought the champions of England and Australia? Nevermind that there were a good 10+ fighters who could have whipped the tar out of them with ease well ahead of them. Now, who is being arbitrary? Was Jeffries a world champion? If so why and how? Because you are saying the argument is that Corbett wasnt a world champion and if not then how was Fitz and by extension Jeffries? When exactly does the HW championship lineage start in the wonderful world of Senya? You seem to miss the point that things operated on a much less defined scale than they do now. You do realize that up until the 1920s a champion could defend his title weighing above the weight limit as long as his opponent weighed below right? You do realize that some championships changed hands in bouts where neither fighter weighed the limit right? Should we go back and invalidate every bout that does not meet your strict criteria? I swear sometimes I have absolutely no understanding of where you come from. Its like your argument that in the Gibbons-McFarland bout we should use unofficial weights in Boxrec instead of the official weights for that one fight (because you are a fan of McFarlands and it makes it appear that Gibbons didnt have to struggle to make an unnaturally low weight). Man, when you get behind someone you are willing to throw everything out the window just to support that one fighter and damn the truth or common sense. Its the same when you obviously dont like someone. You didnt used to be like that but it has just gotten worse and worse and worse. I dont understand it.

 

Don't understand? Do you want to return to the first page of this thread? What I originally said:

I'm not exactly denying Fitz the world mw championship title here, am I? I'm saying it depends on what stance you choose as to what should be considered world championship. After that I give my reasoning why I think it's debatable. Yet people take it as I'm insisting on that version as the only correct one, and that's it's derogatory to Fitzsimmons to even question that. Was it not derogatory to John L. and Corbett too? I haven't seen anyone defend Corbett when I mentioned that some experts questioned his world championship claim.

I sometimes wonder what's wrong with people's memory that they can't keep track of the context of the discussion even when it had just begun and consists of several posts, and then it just gets worse and worse as the debate develops to other things.

Anyway, it wasn't just middleweights or heavyweights, and it wasn't limited to 19th century. For example, the sporting editor of Oregon Journal (Portland) insisted in his write-ups about Joe Gans-Tom Tracey bout in 1903 to refer to Joe Gans as the lightweight champion of America:
"20-round boxing contest between Tom Tracey of this city and Joe Gans, the lightweight champion of America"
"Gans, who is the undisputed champion lightweight of America"

 

I dont understand your point. Is it that because there were a few oddball opinions out there that they invalidate the majority? Any writer or newspaper can print anything they want, it doesnt make it so. Do you subscribe to the belief that Jack Dempsey won the light heavyweight championship from Terry Keller in 1916? Its become vogue for internet "historians" to come across the rare oddity or tidbit and try to pretend they discovered something "new" or lost to history and make hay from it. Common sense rarely prevails. For all you know your Portland story might be a matter of symantics i.e. Gans was the undisputed lightweight champion FROM America. Either way why even bring it up if you cant think of any other lightweight in the world in 1903 who had a better claim to the world championship than Joe Gans did at that time. When you frame the discussion in that light your point becomes meaningless, just like those youve made about Corbett and Fitz. This discussion was meant to be about whether Fitz was a top 5 p4p guy. It doesnt matter whether or not he was universally recognized as a world champion at MW. To invalidate those claims would mean invalidating all claims because they all originated the same way and once again we are back to the point of just how good they were on their merits, not what titles they had. Nevermind that there was no one in the world at that weight who had a better claim or who had beaten someone recognized (at least in parts) as the champion. But hey, if you want to cast doubt on the credentials of Fitz, Corbett, and Gans, three of the giants of the sport you profess to love and fly in the face of all accepted belief be my guest. That will be a lonely road to walk.

 

You don't understand what point? That's Fitz's world championship was debatable? Do you insist that no other version can exist, that it's the absolute undisputable fact that Fitzsimmons was the world middleweight champion? Or do you insist that it's too weird of a version that makes him only the champion of America? You can find dozens of sporting writers, some very famous ones, who insisted on that version regarding John L. Sullivan and Jim Corbett. Sure, nobody has heard of John A. Horan, the sporting editor of Oregon Journal. But how about Richard K. Fox or Charles F. Mathison (I think it was him who insisted that John L. was never world champion in late 1900s or early 1910s in NY Press; or maybe it was the sporting editor of NY Sun, not sure) or "The Amateur" from Sydney Referee, those weren't some totally unknown newspapers nobody has heard about. I can't recall other names right now, I wasn't writing them down, but I'm sure I have seen that claim about World vs America titles by other syndicated (ie, well-known, and published by multiple newspapers) writers.

The discussion of Fitz being P4P Top 5 or not was a completely different debate and had nothing to do with world/american title.

 

Yes and within situations like what you describe you have Richard Kyle Fox (who you used as an example) that had a very public feud with Sullivan and wouldnt have recognized him as champion if hed beaten every fighter at every weight on the planet.

Like I said, who had a better claim then the fighters you use as an example. At some point common sense and a consensus must prevail. I realize you buy into the whole idea behind alphabet titles, you have to being a Roy Jones apologist, but simply because somebody disputes the claim of the most qualified recognized and proven fighter does not mean there is a better claimant out there. Indeed there wasnt anyone even close to rivaling any of those guys you mentioned.

You are right, the discussion about top P4P was a completely different debate and it was you who deviated from it.

 

To answer the original question, I have Fitz outside the top 5 but within the top 10 p4p. I haven't done a p4p list in long time, as there are a million variables but based on Fitz's accomplishments I think he has a solid standing to make a top 10.

 

Why do you have to mention Roy Jones every time we debate anything? Richard Fox is not enough to you? Ok.

Sandy Griswold, famous sporting writer in Omaha World-Herald (Oct 7, 1900): "Jim Jeffries is the only world's champion that I know of." After that he quotes Billy Pierce, another famous boxing expert from Boston Illustrated Police News, who argues that it wasn't until Jeffries beat Peter Jackson that the true world championship was established.

Otto Floto, famous sporting writer in Denver Post (August 31, 1904), answering to a reader's question on whether John L. Sullivan was ever the world champion. - "Sullivan was the champion of America", and gives a detailed reasoning, concluding his argument with "Corbett defeated Sullivan, Mitchell and fought a draw or rather a sixty-four-round "no contest" bout with Jackson. That's how near he came to the world's championship. Jeffries, though fighting under Queensberry rules, is more entitled to be called the champion of the world than any other fighter we have ever had."

Editor James Elverson of Philadelphia Inquirer (editor of that newspaper from 1880 until at least 1916), answering a reader's question on June 20, 1906:
"CORBETT NEVER CHAMPION OF THE WORLD- By reason of his victory over John L. Sullivan at New Orleans, September 7, 1892, Corbett became champion of America. Strictly speaking, there never was a heavy weight world's champion. George Dixon was the nearest approach to an international champion, and he was a feather weight."


Sporting editor of NY Press in May 1907 (quoted by another newspaper):
"Therefore Sullivan never had any technical right to the title of world's champion, and he certainly showed he was afraid to meet Jackson, the holder of the English title."

W.W. Naughton, sporting editor of SF Examiner, yet another famous boxing writer, in February 1911 answers the questions whether Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries or Johnson had ever been world heavyweight champions:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88084272/1911-02-11/ed-1/seq-18/
concluding his answer with:
"It is highly probable that Jack Johnson's claim to the championship is safer from attack by anyone with a penchant for discovering flaws than any of his predecessors."

E.G. Brown, boxing writer in Buffalo Times, In March 1912 (quoted by another newspaper): "John L. Sullivan was never champion of the world under Marquis of Queensberry rules."

 

What next accusation are you going to come up with? It was mcvey in the very first post in this thread who came up with an argument "Fitz won three world titles ,middle,heavy and lhvy , an astonishing feat", which I replied to.

 

Ok, so I ask again, who was the first world champion in Senya's world??

 

Yes he was stating Fitz's accepted resume in regards to the discussion. Was it not you who ignored the title of the discussion and has since deviated from it continuously. Its not an accustion merely a statement of fact.

 

John L. Sullivan was the first MoQ world heavyweight champion in my version of the world.

 

So now it is prohibited to refer to any single word used by the creator of the thread in his very first post? If somebody names his thread "Why Floyd Mayweather is the greatest fighter of all time?" and in the first post lists several reasons why he thinks it is so, we are not allowed to disagree or comment on his reasons and can only write posts that contain reasons why Floyd can be considered the GoaT?
I'm getting tired of this BS you are coming up with.

 

And no, I wasn't expecting a "sorry, I wasn't aware that multiple famous sporting writers also asked themselves that question about the first world heavyweight champion", not from you, never happens.