Is Bob Fitzsimmons Top 5 P4P?

Of course the laws of physics were still the same, so you could argue that if it is relevant now, it must be relevant then.

 

Agreed. The LHW class had a nebulous beginning, which is why Choynski and a few others never referred to themselves as champions on the "division," although it was long needed. Fitz was definitely one of the oddest, most gifted freaks in the annals of the sport.

 

****

 

Well, like I said, I wasn't piling on anyone just agreeing in principle with Senya. Ive argued for years that newspaperarchive, googlenews, etc have made SOME research easy but in large part it has bred extremely lazy research.

For the record I purchased your book. I don't profess to be a Choynski expert and as such I was satisfied with your effort. What are the odds that another book on Choynski will be out in the next decade or two that does a better job. Unlikely IMO. I don't know enough about the subject to judge whether your research was good or not. People on here know Im not shy about voicing my disgust for poorly researched lazy efforts (Stanley Ketchel and Jimmy Clabby bios Im looking at you). So I had I been offended by it I would have said something.

 

You do not need to sell me on the idea that the lhw title was taken lightly back then, but a lot of title claims of the period started out as promotional gimicks e.g. Harts heavyweigth title claim.

I do not think it is accurate to say that the division was only formed in 1912.

 

****

 

***

 

Why, did Fitz demand weight stips the way that Leonard did with Lalonde? I have no problem with Leonard beating the "naturally " bigger guy, but why demand that that same bigger guy can ONLY weigh in at a maximum 169?

 

What is in a name? Light heavy champ or not, these guys were light heavys and they fought. They were the best two guys in the world at that weight at that time. Who cares what you call it? Guys today call themselves champs - only there are about 10 guys calling themselves world champion in the same weight class. Big deal.

The reason why O'Brien didn't defend the light heavy title is there was more money and prestige fighting as a "heavyweight." Also, after he beat Fitz, he didn't just claim to be the light heavy champ, he actually claimed to be the heavyweight champ, saying that since Jeff retired the title reverted back to the previous title holder, which was Fitz. Since Fitz was so highly respected and one of the biggest names in the sport, some supported O'Brien as being the best heavyweight in the world. It was brilliant marketing. He parlayed that claim into lucrative title fights with Tommy Burns. Fact is that O'Brien did not want to fight Hart, who had hurt him badly when they fought, but when Hart lost to Burns, a man whom O'Brien had beaten in a 6-round bout, he saw an opportunity to be heavyweight champion. The heavyweight crown was where the most fame and money were. Burns wasn't much bigger than him, so why fight for the light heavy crown when you can fight for the heavyweight crown?

The main reason why they started talking about light heavys and a new division was the feeling that guys weighing in the 170-pound range simply could not deal with a monster like Jeffries. But there was a sense that they still were great fighters and could make for great fights with guys their own size.

Historically anything above middle was heavy. Light heavy was essentially a smaller heavy. So if guys thought they could compete as full-fledged heavyweights, they did. And it wasn't such a stretch back then because most heavyweights weren't huge monsters. Plus with the smaller gloves and title fights being 20 rounds or more, the feeling was that weight differences did not matter as much.

 

Bingo. Without a primary source, we are talking about guys who change history years later for a fanciful tale. That is why it is always good to check and analyze your sources. What is the date of the source? What newspaper? What person? Is it what was actually said or what someone claims was said? Is that person just saying something different decades later? What did they say at the time? Where is the proof that Graney said at that time that it was a fix? No such thing. I know because I read all of the local San Francisco newspapers.

So please do not try to mislead people into believing something that isn't true. It does boxing history an injustice. Not one single writer who saw Fitzsimmons-Gardner even hinted that it was a fix.

 

Depends if you want to make a case for a fighter for whom historical documents and records as well as a small amount of low quality fragmented film are relied upon to assess their greatness.
I would say hell no extensive film is an essential prop when assessing candidates for such a status.

 

I don't know what that means. And the laws of physics were different then as we didn't have all of relativity or any of quantum physics so that statement is incorrect.

 

no. a better choice would be someone like Roy Jones who was great all around

 

But it was not a "distant memory", or a "newly created division", because there were fighters claiming it throughout this period. The New York State Commission did nothing more than rationalise it.

 

My point is that if being the best fighter between 160lbs and 175lbs is a significant acomplishment now, then it was a significant acomplishment then. The fact that the title was not valued at the time, does not denigrate it in hindsight, if the men contesting it were more or less the best available.