Fitzsimmons middleweight loss has always had me a little suspicious (though i have had nothing more than a hunch). So, just before i tried a simple google search and uncovered the following article (hope this is how you do a link). This does not look like a common article and i hadnt read it before, so I thought some might be interestid in it. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cg...ZTR19140314.2.32&l=mi&e=-------10--1----0-all So after reading this, is it now fair to say that Fitzsimmons never really lost a fight until he met Jeffries. Absolutely astonishing, if this is the case, and it further pushes Fitzsimmons case as the greatest prize fighter that ever left. No other fighter has had such a lengthy undefeated streak at such a high level and across such a spread of weight divisions.
The loss to Hall has always been speculated/rumored to have been a fix. Who knows what the truth is, though.
It seemed to ignore it and refer to the Hall loss as Fitzsimmons only loss. I am not sure about the Dooley loss. Does anyone have any Newspaper reports or details of the fight. Either way, Dooley seems to be a decent (perhaps a fringe top 10 or even better?) heavyweight. And Fitzsimmons immediately reversed the result, from what i can see, so for a middleweight, this alone is a very good result and certainly no shame in that loss. While on the subject, Hall was also a lot better than people give credit. He would have been a definite world champion if there were 4 titles and millions of weight categories, like today. Perhaps even a multidivision champion. It was a good win and even if it wasnt a dive, there is certainly no shame in it. Incidentally, I read an article, while looking for something on the Dooley fight where the press seemed to think that Hall would beat Fitz if he could land enough, as they questioned Fitz chin. This was just prior to Fitz defending the World Title against Hall.
just remember that a few of today's Jr. Middleweights could have been considerred HW's back then. all they have to do in order to do so was : eat normally and healthy , not trying to diet/trim near fights and not trying to dehydrate. I read somewhere that Daniel Santos was a 'lightheavy' in the ring in his bout against cheato. now , thinks of guys like : miranda , taylor , aa , hopkins , toney , roy jones , guillermo jones , hearns , mugabi , carl 'bobo' olson- they'd ever been not small heavies back then. hw of fitzsimmons age included men at sizes ranging from today's 154 and above.
Dont forget, despite the fact that many smaller guys did beat the Super heavys regularly, Fitzsimmons is the only middleweight to hold the title, ever! Tyson was not really all that big at any stage of his career. When he was champ, he was so much more dominant and harder hitting than the large super heavys that there was no consideration whatsoever that bigger was necessarilly better. Fitzsimmons is actually taller, has better reach and uses his jab more often, than prime Tyson. Foreman is a great fighter, possibly the greatest ever. But physically, he is nearly exactly the same as Jim Jeffries. Jim did beat Fitz, but he probably wouldnt have under modern rules, because the ref would have stopped jim from continuing due to cuts. Why not Foreman? Holmes is a pretty poor example. He actually lost his title to a light heavyweight! It is easy to look at dimensions and discount fitz as a serious contender against modern fighters. It was just as easy to do the same back in Fitz time. The reality is that if Fitz was born 100 years later and beat the same caliber of opponents (relative to his time) as he did when he fought, his resume would be such that he would be considered undoubtedly the greatest ever. (certainly as a middleweight anyway) I dont think that it is really fair or sensible to discount Fitz because you think what he did in his own time is impossible to replicate in this time. It was just as impossible when Fitz accomplished it and has never been done again.
You dont think it is possible that Foreman was the greatest ever? I dont either, but it is reasonable for someone to think that he was. He dominated a man most people consider top 10 of all time (Joe Frazier) like no one has ever done to such a top caliber fighter. Foreman did the exact same to Ken Norton, who himself broke the Jaw of the greatest fighter ever (in most peoples eyes) and lost to disputed close decisons.He lost to Muhammed Ali, but despite being stopped, it was a hell of a close fight. Ali (who landed better offence than what he is credited for often) was out on his feet more than once. He needed everything to be in his favour, a large ring, unbelievable hot conditions, loose ropes etc. And even then, he just barely managed to beat George. It is doubtful that Ali would have been the favourite if they fought again soon after. In his second career, he was so far beyond prime it isnt funny, yet he still managed to win the world heavyweight championship, and his power was so phenomenal that large modern superheavyweights had to turn into dancers, clinchers and movers, just to survive against him. I am sorry flea man, but there is every chance that George foreman was the greatest fighter ever, certainly in a head to head sense. Who would you rate ahead of him? Interestingly, if you consider the performances, solely between the 4 best fighters of the 70s (Frazier, Norton, Ali and Foreman), it is arguable that Foreman actually has the best record! And given that most people rate the 70s as the strongest era ever, i would say that Foreman as the greatest ever is not as ridiculous as you seem to think. So, what are your arguments against Foreman? Do you think the 70s are too primitive or something?
Actually, I said "possibly" atsch So if you rate him 5th, why is it not possible that someone could rate him 1? atsch
Ummm.....a certain Ali atsch You only twist things to further your own opinion. You're seriously biased and show a lack of objectivity. :good