Ring magazine is officially lost it

Okay, so you are not asking for proof to a mathematical certainty after all, then. That's good.

Most of my and Kamikaze's unsupported assertions are relatively uncontroversial. Older fighters are at a disadvantage against younger fighters, smaller fighters against larger ones, talent pools have an impact on era quality, etc. If you're disputing some of these or asking for evidence of them, that should not be too difficult. But you'll have to point out which ones you disagree with, since in some cases you're asking for justification of pretty well established things.

 

On the size matter, I am not sold on the idea that the average size of the contenders in an era, is a guide to the strength of the era.

Indeed the deepest talent pools might well be found in eras where the average heavyweight was quite small.

While I accept that bigger fighters generally have an advantage against smaller fighters, I feel that there are enough counterexamples to render the principle unreliable.

While I accept that larger talent pools generally produce better talent, you get the occasional phenomenal athlete, who just happens to crop up in a small talent pool.

I also feel that people often assert that certain eras had a shallow talent pool, based on very slender evidence.

 

"post PED's"

"post PDS's" "Archie Moore would be a better example"

or Warren Spahn winning 23 games at 42. There have always been outliers.

Fitz as an "extreme anomaly"

How many triple champions were there in the old days? Isn't Fitz the only man to be champion from middleweight to heavyweight? That makes him unique, which is the definition of an exteme anomaly. Langford might have been a champion if given a shot, but that he actually could have been heavyweight champion against Johnson is guesswork. Mitchell and Choynski were only contenders, hardly in the same class as a triple champion.

"Weighed in for Fitz's bouts below heavyweight"

The old Ring Record Book gave Fitz's weight for a middleweight title defense against Jem Hall in 1893 as 167 lbs. Hall is listed at 163. If accurate, this indicates his natural weight was well above middleweight years earlier.

This is Adam Pollack on Fitz's weight for the second Jeff fight, from page 527 of his biog of Jeffries:

"Fitzsimmons claimed to weigh only 160 lbs. The Police Gazette said Bob weighed 168 to Jeff's 218. Another Gazette writer listed Fitz at 180 lbs. The San Francisco Examiner's W. W. Naughton questioned Fitz's reported weight, feeling he was closer to 190 lbs."
"In Two-Fisted Jeffries, Jeff said that Fitz later told him that before their rematch, he weighed 185 pounds."

I don't remember and don't want to look up in a 700 page book the exact page in which Adam relates that Fitz was suspected of giving lighter weights to give his giant killer rep a boost, but unless my memory is playing tricks, it is there. Fitz often claimed to weigh in the 150's, which seemed to those watching him train to be absurd. What appears certain is that these light weights might indeed have been exaggerated for hype.

"you can't conclude any fighter is better or worse than any other"

What? No. What I believe is one can judge one record as better than another. For example, if a prime Dempsey fought a prime Louis, I can't really be certain who would win, but for me there is no question that Louis has the better record and accomplishments and so is the greater fighter in an historical sense, which is what matters to me as I consider it real.

"smaller talent pools"

Perhaps, but I am not certain Russia wouldn't almost always produce better heavyweights than China. I suppose it depends on what one considers the useful talent pool. I concede this point has validity.

"older fighters" "smaller fighters"

Circular reasoning here. It is just knocking fighters for being relatively older or smaller. If Archie Moore, who has been mentioned, as well as Bob Satterfield, weren't there in 1955, big Nino Valdes would have been fighting for the title. He was big, but was he the more formidable fighter. If so, why did he lose to Moore? And Satterfield?

"boxing was illegal"

Yes. I do think boxing improved over the years after becoming legal and widespread, but do these trends in and of themselves produce greatness. What about hunger and a lack of viable options for making a living?

 

Bit short on time, so I will try to respond in summary fashion. Apologies that I'm kind of sloppy and all over the place:

1) The cites you gave on Fitzsimmons's weight are fine. I concede that it's an open issue how much the guy actually weighed by the time he fought Jeffries.

2) Fitzsimmons may be unique as a "triple crown champion" (at a time when the modern divisions had barely formed, mind you), but he was not unique in being known as a small fighter who could beat up heavyweights with punching power. The other guys I mentioned all got to contender level during this period and were known as hard hitters. (EDIT: Except Goss.) I find it a stretch to posit multiple Julian Jacksons running around in this narrow stretch of time. And even Jackson wasn't blasting out Lennox Lewis, or Tommy Morrison, or Golota. And that's in the PED era, mind you.

3) We rely on some of the same type of considerations in trying to evaluate who wins a current fight (looking at the guy and his opponent in filmed performances, seeing the talent pool he hails from, etc.) as we do when evaluating eras. If we can do the former, we shouldn't be totally lost in the latter.

4) We mostly agree on talent pools, it seems. Glad to hear it. And yes. I think Russia will produce more good heavyweights than China for the foreseeable future. It's not a perfect correlation.

5) It's not circular to claim that small, old fighters are generally at a disadvantage against larger ones, because we have lots of evidence that this is the case. For example: the existence of weight divisions, the rarity of fighters like Archie Moore, the average age of top fighters in the pre steroid era, the well-documented negative effects of age on athletic performance, and so on. Indeed, the reverence that old time fans hold for Fitzsimmons depends on these disadvantages being real.

6) I grant that the desperation in lower-class Gilded Age America -- essentially a third world country -- would potentially produce good fighters. But even the most desperate men need regular training and financial support. And there needs to be regular competition, too. You also need a critical mass of such desperate people to produce the talent pool you're looking for, and -- critically -- they need to be of sufficient size to make good heavyweights. Remember that people themselves are not physically large at this time compared to later on...which is the flipside of being a third world Victorian country.

 

Pointing out exceptions to general trends only holds to a point. Take Sullivan's era, since it's a real time period and illustrates the point well.

You can say that Charlie Mitchell was an exception for his reputed punching power and ability to tangle with heavies. Extreme end of the talent bell curve, etc.

Ok, but what about Goss? Another exception, you say. Absolute phenom. Incredible once in a century talent. That's how he managed to hold the title as an old sub-middleweight.

And then it just goes down the list. Paddy Ryan, who won the title in what, his first fight? Second? Oh, another prodigy. Mike Donovan? Prodigy. Alf Greenfield? Rules lawyer. (OK, I give you that last one.)

And how about Sullivan's weight problems? Oh. Well, maybe he was just one of those once-in-a-blue-moon fighters who can dominate the heavyweight division while being an overweight alcoholic.

What about the small number of recorded fights, and the fact that competition was basically illegal? Where are they getting their money for training expenses and camps, which any modern fighter will tell you they need? Oh, they were all just super talented back then, you (might?) say. And they just happened to be a small pool of fighters who were all genetic anomalies and didn't need training. And...


...At some point, the coincidences, claimed anomalies, and exceptions to the rule start to look like wildly implausible special pleading.

 

OK, but since then we had Fitzsimmons, McCoy, Walcott, Langford, Walker.

How much more evidence do you need?

No.

Goss was not among the best, when Jem Mace was champion.

That is a legitimate black mark against the era.

I have to assume that he was not, since he is the only man, who has ever got away with that, in the entire history of the sport!

However you might conclude, that he was an exceptional talent on that basis!

The small number of recorded fights, is entirely down to the media of the era.

Most fights were not recorded, as is a problem into the 1950s.

Yes competition was illegal back then, but it was also a big money business.

Where were the contenders of depression era America getting their money from?

 

Notice that most of those guys are also from the early years of gloved boxing. Which is part of my point.

Right, so again, that only deepens the problem.

You could conclude that Sullivan was a once-in-history talent, sure. Or you can look at the limited development of Queensberry pro boxing at the time, and all the other problems, and choose the less spectacular option: That Sully got away with it because his competition was poor.

(Or -- wait. Are you saying that Sullivan was *not* overweight, nor an alcoholic?)

*Entirely* down to the media of the era? Exactly how many fights do you think were going on in 1882?

Its social impact seems pretty well correlated with the number of recorded fights on Boxrec by decade, to my inexpert eye.

So was bareknuckle boxing in the UK until recently. How d'you fancy Bartley Gorman or Lenny McLean's chances against Ali?

Also, I think calling it a big money business is being generous, in the early 1880s. Sullivan really helped build the infrastructure to make money out of a world title.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. The fighters who had the time and opportunity to train did better in the 1930s than the guys who didn't.

 

So what your telling me is a modern 39 year MW almost beat him?

 

In the grand scheme of things Jeff is not a special fighter H2H neither is Fitz at HW. They are not deserving to be mentioned alongside the likes of Lewis, Holmes, Schmeling, Louis, Ali ect, ect ,ect.

 

I don't know how it gets a pass. In summary life just sucks to be a sportsman sometimes even if you are the best.

 

Yep.

Joe Lewis (with an "ew") had the same problem in early American kickboxing. No real competition. Lost a dodgy fight or two, but mostly it was just poor competition that makes him impossible to rate among the best, even in that niche sport. Tough cookies.

Altho -- he was a jerk, too, so I doubt many people are going to cry over the unfairness.

 

Watch film of Hagler then watch film of Stanley.

 

Countless examples. If you are Goldfish in a pool of mosquito fish they are going to call you a shark.

 

I will say that I like Jeff's chances much better under his own rules head to head. Even if his talent pool, etc. wasn't great, it would have given him enough competition to outfight more modern guys unaccustomed to 1900s Greco-Roman wrestleboxing.

 

That is if they were not given a camp or wrestling training to rag doll the very "Huge" Jeff.