Ring magazine is officially lost it

Might take a while to get up to that level. It's not an overnight thing. Jeffries was training with world champions, and even if you hold a very low opinion of "world champion" wrestlers in that period, they're still going to be technically proficient, big guys.

 

As an aside, I generally prefer time machine imaginary bouts to ones with long training camps that change the way a fighter fights. We have a pretty good idea how Jeff or Frazier fought on film. Trying to imagine Frazier after a training camp with the US wrestling team and MMA gloves, or Jeffries after some sessions with Freddie Roach and a plate full of steroids, is more difficult.

 

Like I maintained with cross-trainer. Using weight and age as determinants closes any ability to evaluate an outlier such as Tom Brady in football, or Fitz or Moore in boxing.

Some, and yes they are noticeably rare, athletes defy these rules. Max Kellerman had to eat crow about Brady. The beauty of fantasy match-ups or across time comparisons is one never has to eat crow. It is all up to your imagination and the limits of your imagination. If your imagination is governed by immutable rules, the only explanation for an outlier is the lack of competition. Which of course becomes your explanation. Put down Jeffries.

I judge these immutable rules to be premises and not an evaluation.

 

It's not immutable rules, IMO. It's a balance of probabilities.

Would it surprise me if Fitzsimmons went out there and flattened Lennox Lewis? A little, yeah, but I would be able to accommodate myself to it in the terms that you mentioned. (Along with Fitz's unconventionality, etc.) I might also conclude that the proper analogy for Fitzsimmons isn't a primitive boxer versus a modern one, but more like the Thai kickboxers against their "modern" Western foes in the 80s. A fighter from a third world environment that somehow had the right conditions for creating amazing fighters.

Fitz probably had unusual longevity because he was somewhat like Moore too, yes. But remember that Moore was bigger than Fitz, and that he still declined with age. And fought in what appears to be a much tougher field based on the usual benchmarks. Moore may well have been a once in a century talent...and he still got smooshed by Marciano.

Satterfield is another exception that proves the rule. He managed to become a fearsome heavyweight puncher in the 180 pound range. (Which is still bigger than somebody like Choynski.) But Satterfield did it by swinging for the fences in a way that left him vulnerable to getting clubbed out frequently.

 

1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Lewis 4. Foreman 5. Holmes 6. Dempsey 7. Liston 8. Wladimir 9. Frazier 10. Holyfield

 

1- Ali
2- Marciano
3- Foreman
4- Wlad
5-Louis
6- Dempsey
7- Holyfield
8- Tyson
9- Jeffries
10- Holmes or Frazier

Off the top of my head. I generally rate on durability, H2H as well as pound for pound, transcending the sport, and fun to watch.

 

I would be a little surprise if Fitzsimmons came out there and knock out Lennox Lewis, but it is also not impossible for that outcome to happen, unlikely sure, but Bob had real rare power that flatten heavyweights(For his era). I suppose if Fitzsimmons landed on Lewis's chin, he could pull it off, Lewis IMO also did not have the best of chins as Rahman and even to some extant McCall showed. Lewis CAN be knockout, and I would give any puncher from Sullivan up a fair chance to repeat that feat.

 

Has been an enjoyable discussion. Thanks for your imput.

"people themselves are not physically large at this time"

This brings up an issue for me.

Exactly. This is true. Not only things like performance enhancing supplements, but nutrition, medical care at all points in your life, like inoculations against childhood diseases, antibiotics against infections which in the old days one's body had to fight off unaided, and on and on. Is it fair to compare someone from the modern world to someone who had to survive in that one? This is one major reason I think a fighter should be compared only to fighters from his own era as all those fighters lived in the same world.

*really off subject, but listening to young people complaining so much about everything, I wish some of them considered how much worse earlier generations had it.

 

Thanks. I've also considered this an enjoyable discussion.

I agree 100%. It is NOT fair to compare accomplishments in "greatness" terms across eras. Head to head analysis should be separated from that.

Even Ali, living as he did in a segregated America, was downright privileged compared to Jack Johnson. (Or perhaps even Sullivan himself, considering the anti-Irish animus of the 1880s.)

 

Stop citing football as a reference- We are talking about a much more different sport lol. Fitz was 39 in the second fight made a good showing of himself was the lightest HW champ in history and was a natural MW and he is Jeff’s best win correct?

 

No disrespect to the wrestlers of the era. I shouldn’t have been so cut and dry I was more implying that Jeff isn’t that strong and with training more modern HWs would demolish him.

 

The LPR rules were a lot more favorable to smaller fighters, so I don't think it's really valid to compare sizes with LPR.

 

On Fitz's weights, he weighed in fully dressed shortly before the Ruhlin fightvand was 164Ibs IIRC.

The heavier weights for Fitz just seem to be estimates, when he weighed his weight seems to have been lower.

 

Actually, other than kickers, I can't think of anyone who remained good at football well into their forties other than Brady, certainly not as an every down player. A lot of George Blanda's work as he grew older was as a kicker. Many more boxers like Moore and Hopkins and Foreman and Holmes have survived at or near the top into athletic old age. The reason might be that the whole body takes a beating in football.

"Natural MW"

So. Chris Byrd weighed 169 for his first fight at 22 and 174 for a fight in 2008 at 37. In between he defeated Vitali Klitschko and Jameel McCline. Was Byrd a natural light-heavyweight? That seems to be your argument. Natural light-heavy Roy Jones defeated the 227 pound John Ruiz. And Mike Spinks defeated Larry Holmes.

Fitz's actual weight was in dispute in his own day. Adam Pollack gives a ton of evidence. Fitz always claimed to be light which made his victories over heavyweights appear more impressive. Many felt he shaved 10 or more lbs. off his claimed weights.

At this point who can tell, but it seems logical there wouldn't have been anything to dispute if the reporters were watching him weigh in.

 

Who were the witnesses to this weigh-in? Was this just related by Fitz or a Fitz spokesman? If it came from Fitz it doesn't really mean much as we know he claimed that weight.

Adam Pollack gives a ton of examples of writers thinking and writing that Fitz's weight was 10 to 15 lbs heavier than his claimed weight.

My take is why would anyone dispute his weight if he was being weighed in front of reliable witnesses? I would think that would end all disputes and speculation.

Unlike most of the other "small" men who did well in heavyweight boxing, like Greb and Walker, Fitz was not particularly short for a heavyweight of his era. His stated height is about 6'. To be a middleweight he would have to be a fairly thinnish man. But observers commented on his upper body development which makes sense as he apparently always did blacksmith work to supplement his other training. Swinging those heavy hammers for hours on end did build up the muscle.