Here is something to put Fitzsimmons achievement into perspective. The following fighters have been lineal champions at welterweight and middleweight: Tommy Ryan Mickey Walker Emile Griffith Ray Robinson Ray Leonard The following fighters have been lineal champions at middleweight and light heavyweight: Bob Fitzsimmons Dick Tiger Bernard Hopkins The following fighters have been lineal champions at light heavyweight and heavyweight: Bob Fitzsimmons Michael Spinks The following fighters have been lineal champions at middleweight and heavyweight: Bob Fitzsimmons
The importance of Fitz holding of the light heavyweight title lies not in the legitimacy of the title but the quality of the fighters. As I said Gardner, Root, McCoy, O'Brien, Choynski, Hart, Carter were all operating in the division making it very competitive at the top, do you think there were better fighter at 170 pounds at that time? Fitz wasn't defeating a fringe top ten guy in Gardner but a legit number one. It matters not a whit that after he lost it, it slipped into obscurity.
Jack Root beat Kid McCoy for the light heavyweight championship. (Some say McCoy won that championship from Choynski.) George Gardner then won the championship from Root. Fitzsimmons won it from Gardner. Then O'Brien won it from Fitzsimmons.
Dont forget, that when Fitz was fighting, and first won his middleweight title, it was virtually a Welterweight title. Also, rememember that when he beat Corbett he weight in as a middleweight (okay, i know there is some conjecture and dispute but at worst it was a supermiddleweight). this is something that no single other fighter has ever been able to do, ever. Or at least since the change to gloved fighting. That is an enormous achievement. And given that he succesffully competed in this division for another 10 or more years (leaving aside the fact that realistically he was physically past his best by this time) it is an astonishing effort. IMagine if the Cruiserweight, Super middleweight, Junior middleweweight and even the Super cruiserweight had been in existence and actually meant something to him. Plus, imagine if the lightweight title was in existence when he campained in this divisino and the champion toured New Zealand. Fitz was undoubtedly the best pound for pound fighter in his time. It was pretty much universally accepted by the time he retired. It probably wasnt until Sugar Ray Robinson appeared on the scene and those who saw Bob died out that his place at the top was ever seriously questioned. They cant be that far wrong.
I have the local primary sources, and at the time do not recall Graney saying anything about a fix. I discuss this fight in In the Ring With Marvin Hart. When Referee Ed Graney pointed to Fitzsimmons as the winner of his decision [after 20 rounds], the crowd stood and cheered the new champion. They wanted a speech, but all Fitz would say was, “Haven’t I done enough for one night?” He was tired, but happy. Bob had a puffed lip. Gardner’s face was badly swollen and he had a cut over his right eye. Graney said that although it was a slow affair, this was wise strategy on Fitz and Delaney’s part. If Bob had mixed it too much or too long, he might have worn himself out or left himself open to Gardner, who at all times was dangerous. Gardner had the better condition and was strong, but he failed to take enough chances until the last few rounds. He seemed afraid of Fitz’s heavy punch. Graney said Bob was tired at the end, but held his own in all but a very few rounds. His knockdowns counted a long way in his favor. All of his punches carried sting, whereas “Gardner could not hit hard enough to break a pane of glass.” Although Bob rested and moved away a lot, stalling for time, Gardner did nothing worthy of mention, despite being more active. He forgot to bring his punch. Fitz was too strong for him. However, Bob was out of condition. “Had he been the old-time Fitz he would have won in three rounds.” Fitzsimmons said if his hands had not gone out on him, he would have stopped Gardner in 5 rounds. He said he broke his right early, and disabled his left in the 13th round. Still, he gave Gardner some credit. “There is a great deal of praise due to Gardner, for he fought a game, hard fight. He was always ready to come back into the fray after he had been hit hard, and he mixed it when the opportunity was afforded.” Bob’s hands really were injured. It was necessary to cut the gloves from his hands. In the dressing room afterwards, a physician examined Bob’s right hand and confirmed that the knuckles of the thumb and first finger were fractured. Bob’s left hand was swollen to twice its natural size. Later, he could not handle a knife or fork to eat. Still, although agreeing that hurt hands might have affected his ability to put Gardner away, most felt that the predominant reason was that Bob was no longer what he once was. Even Fitzsimmons recognized that he was past it. “I did well for an old man, but my ring days are over.” "Tonight’s battle ends my career in the prize ring. I will never fight again. I am getting old … Why a week ago I wrote George Dawson that I would be lucky if I won, and I tell you now that I am a lucky fellow. I was a sick man, I tell you, and I can easily feel the effects of Gardner’s punches, even though they were not very hard ones." Bill Delaney said Fitz showed that he was getting old, but Gardner never stepped close enough to land a big punch. Bob mostly bluffed his way through the bout, save for the flashes of his old-time form. He gave Gardner credit for taking the punching he did and getting up off the floor and coming back again. Gardner was aggressive, but not confident. When he finally showed some confidence at the end, his strength was gone. Still, taking those punches showed he was gritty and game. Gardner said Bob’s heavy blows staggered him early and took a lot of the fight out of him. Still, he noted that Fitz weakened, and during the last part of the fight did nothing but stall, so he felt that he was entitled to the decision or a draw. His coach and trainer, Alex Greggains, said Gardner should have won the decision. He was the aggressor from the 13th round on, following his opponent about and forcing the fighting. Still, he admitted that George did not fight up to his standard. He was slow and his blows lacked force. Robert Edgren said Fitz seemed slow throughout, but at times showed amazing bursts of speed. Gardner used left jabs to the face and body to hold Bob off. All of the local newspapers agreed with the decision. However, all reporters also agreed that Fitz’s best days were past, and that Gardner would have been an easy mark for Fitz when Bob had been at his best. The reporters felt that it had been a relatively poor fight, the poorest of Fitz’s career. It was slow and spiritless. Some said the fight was pathetic, while others said the bout was good and bad in streaks. Fitz’s statement during training that he was not in his old-time form was proven correct. Age and a lengthy career were clearly telling on the war-worn veteran. Some said Fitz could no longer punch like he once could, while others said he still had a punch, but fatigued quickly. Many thought Bob should retire. The Chronicle opined that this version of Fitzsimmons would never land on Jack Johnson. Bob was tricky and clever as ever, but he “does not work his fists so rapidly and the sting is gone out of his shifts and swings.” A short time ago, the same punches would have meant knockout. At present, he “tires very easily,” “cannot lash out in the rapid style of the old days,” and “there is not half the poundage in his punches.” One said Fitz was slow and weak compared to what he once was. Fitzsimmons fought well in spots, but he would alternate flashes of power with fatigue. He knew when and where to hit, and was not slow in starting to punch, but he was quick in stopping, looking to kill the clock after striking hard blows. His wind was not good. When he had Gardner groggy and going, Bob was too weak to take the chance of rushing in to finish, but instead would fiddle and stall for the balance of the round. Fitz no longer had the same vim, and it was inability and not unwillingness that held him back. He had Gardner down on the floor twice in the 4th and once in the 5th rounds. After failing to knock out Gardner, Bob seemed to realize that his steam was lacking and paced himself. He was content to outpoint Gardner. Bob rested up frequently. Although his hands were hurt, it also appeared to be the case that sheer weariness affected Fitz and not just crippled fists. Still, Bob’s flashes of hard punches won him the fight. Gardner was down again in the 13th and 14th rounds. To some, it seemed that Bob was just toying with Gardner. For round after round, it seemed that Fitz could have ended matters whenever he wanted to, but he allowed Gardner to recover. Bob won because he scored all the knockdowns and his hitting was much cleaner and more forceful, and he had generally handled Gardner, who could not hurt him. Even with two hurt hands, Bob managed to stall off the younger and faster man. Bob was too experienced, crafty, and powerful for him. Fitz had the class, and had used his veteran generalship with flashes of power to win, despite his age, poor condition, injured hands, and fact that he had been suffering from a cold. “Fitz showed the most consummate ring generalship. His every move seemed to have been studied out and he hardly wasted a blow.” Gardner was a disappointment. He was too nervous and overly cautious. He seemed to be a victim of stage fright. He did not show the form he had in training or in his fights with Walcott, Carter, Hart, and Root. Gardner mostly fought at long range, and ineffectively. His blows, when they landed at infrequent intervals, had little sting to them, and had no impact on Fitz, who mostly just warded them off on his arms and elbows. After making a flowery showing at the start, despite the fact that Fitz had broken hands and had grown fatigued, Gardner had a wholesome respect for Fitz’s wallops. He seemed unable or unwilling to get in close enough to be effective. The spectators were amazed at Gardner’s poor performance, given his previous showings. Gardner lost his courage after he was knocked down in the 4th round, and he never really regained it. “It was rarely after that that he made anything like a determined effort to beat the Cornishman down.” Gardner rarely took real chances. From the 5th to the 18th rounds, although Gardner carried the fight to Bob, he did it in a half-hearted and ineffective way. George’s condition was first class, but when Fitz worked in his shifts and right and left blows, Gardner seemed to go to pieces. “Toward the close of the fight he kept tapping tired Mr. Fitzsimmons on the midsection with his left. He caused the impression that he was trying to create an opening which never came.” Gardner’s battling spirit was low. He did not make a showing until the end of the bout, when he did some good work in the last 2 rounds when his courage revived and he stung Fitz with some good body blows. It was too little, too late. Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, Examiner, Bulletin, Call, November 26, 27, 1903.
You're preaching to the choir, Steve, but correct. I've been studying boxing and its history for close to 40 years, have collaborated with people like Tracy and Adam, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. AND I HAVE used a whole lot of primary sources in my book. Obviously, primary sources are required, whenever possible. There are some of the more obscure bouts from that era (some of Maher's, for example), where NO accounts appear to exist. I thought I was done with this thread, but now that recent posts were brought to my attention, I suppose it calls for a reply: In the particular case of Choynski-Williams, the next-day's Phil. Inquirer article WAS the wire report, hence, it was repeated ad infinitum in other papers. There really weren't many other reports that dissented or added much to this one, but I included them, as well, AND I DID include the narrative from the "local" report Sergei was looking for. I often mention and utilize wire reports in my book, along *with* a metric ton of other papers and sources, including the primary. As Dubblechin put it, 7 reports for a nondescript, 6-round fight. Yes, a good historian needs to use reports from noted sources, IN ADDITION to any local accounts. Papers such as the SF Examiner (Hearst) and SF Chronicle (de Youngs), for example, each had their own biases, adherents and favorites, so, in order to get a fair, overall view of a given topic, a myriad of primary sources should be used. In the spirit of calling it what it is, it is bad history and bad research, to use ***only those articles that support one's personal view of a fighter***, and excluding dissenting reports. I'm not saying you specifically are guilty of this, because, unlike Senya, I have yet to pick up a copy of your Greb book. So, again, IF Mr. Yurchenko, prior to yakking, had actually read my book, instead of merely glancing through footnotes, he should not have brought into question whether or not, for instance, I covered the Choynski-Carter trial in detail. If I'd covered it in any MORE detail, many a dead horse would have been beaten into the ground. He also would have known, had he read, that I used the narrative FROM his mentioned Phil. Inquirer article FOR THE WILLIAMS FIGHT. If you need a poster child for shoddy research, there he is. The ONE thing I've learned from this, is to cite, for the historians, not the gen. public, the name of the local paper/account, instead of picking the name of another paper that printed the exact same wording. Verbatim narrative is just that. I never said one paper copied the other (Philly and Wilkes-Barre), only that they were exactly the same, so the narrative I used, while originally was from the Inquirer, is in my book, along with the scant few other reports on that match. So, sure, when I saw my name and my book pulled in as "an example" of poor "American research," I very much took exception, as that is complete and utter BULL****. One thing I will not continue to engage in, is a fruitless exchange with a biased, Jerry Springer of boxing, who paints with a wide brush, like Senya ("American historians"??). I own close to 300 books in my Boxing library, from Australia, New Zealand, Germany, England, Ireland and other countries, etc, etc. In all cases, I see a similar variation in quality and style of research. Because, as every intelligent, discerning person knows, stereotyping is a slippery slope, and *individuals* should be the topic, not "American historians." It's very easy for a negative-type to start looking for any opportunity to blast another's work, when he has not himself had a book published, only a website that is a depository for old newspaper articles. Let him write a substantial tome, so everyone can look for every speck of fly **** that might turn up. This is why I, and many other historians out there that I know, generally steer clear of online forums - they have some positive, knowledgeable participants, but far too many who would throw Kate Upton out of bed for having a mole on her back (if that mole is even there). You guys have at it, I've seen enough of the splitting of hairs, picking nits till they bleed, and outright slander, in some cases. Peace.
Oh, and as the initial topic was Fitzsimmons and his P4P rating, with a side topic of the light-heavyweight class, I thought I'd add that I've covered in detail, the early days of the light-heavies, prior to 1903. IMO, Fitz probably does deserve to be ranked in the top 5 P4P pugilists, although that can and has been debated to death. I also have never created such a list. Toodles!
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the LHW "title" was a promotional ploy more than anything. It was largely ignored by the public in general and even boxing fraternity. Those that gave it ANY credence at all were in the minority by long odds. This isn't to diminish Fitz who I have defended on here just stating what needs to be said and that ignoring that simple fact leaves that person on the wrong side of history. The LHW championship wasn't universally accepted, formally established, or even paid a whole lot of attention to by most until formation of the NBA, the establishment of the Walker law, and the massively popular Georges Carpentier winning that title. Those three things which all happened within about a year of each other went further toward establishing the LHW division than anything anyone did in the previous 30 years. Its also why you had guys flit in and out of the "division" (I put it in quotation marks because in most places it didn't exist and wasn't taken seriously), guys winning a "title" and then ignoring it, never defending it, or not even acknowledging it, etc prior to that. Yes you can find the odd reference to this guy being a LHW champion, or that fight being a championship, but those are in the vast minority and as such do not represent the consensus. It was a division in its infancy at best and that infancy last at least two decades. So the guys on here using that argument to diminish Fitz accomplishment at least have the semblance of a leg to stand on although I think its pretty weak to try to use that to diminish what Fitz was accomplishing at that point title or no. He was still the B-Hop of the era and physical freak who happened to be a dynamite puncher and a great fighter in his prime and who had to be a P4P great based on his success across so many different weight ranges titles or no.