Pernell Whitaker Or Bob Fitzsimmons Who Should Be Remembered As The Greater Fighter?

Put a gun to my head and I would have Pernell in the top 25, Fitz in the top 20. I still don't think a comparison such as this is apt. It's almost like judging footballer against a rugby player.

 

Obviously in terms of ability Sweet Pea is a mile ahead but Fitzsimmons cant be blamed for being born in the wrong century, you can only rank him in accordance to how he performed in his own time. Personally I thought Whitaker beat Chavez easily, I think I gave Chavez two or three rounds, I had Whitaker-De la Hoya a draw which past prime was an amazing performance from Sweet Pea. Fitz was something else though, a phenomenon, he is one of the greatest middleweights ever and beat a great middleweight to get the title in Dempsey. To step up and take the lineal heavyweight title like he did is unlikely to ever be repeated. Possessed ridiculous punching power. I have Fitz around #11 ATG and Whitaker around #18. In dont rate fighters head to head or anything like that, thats an impossible exercise. Its more record and performance at numeous weights.

 

I guess I don't understand your definition of ability. I would think it took quite some ability for a spindly middleweight to win three divisions up to heavyweight and give a monster like Jeffries such fits. As far as pure power punching ability, Fitzsimmons has few peers. I would say it is even more impressive than Whitaker's defensive acumen.

 

Im talking about how boxing has changed in the last hundred years. Obviously in his time he was extremely talented. I was sorta replying to PowerPuncher's post in an off-hand way.

 

I give Fitzsimmons the edge in terms of longevity (even though Whitaker boxed more rounds) and character, but Whitaker has the edge in terms of resume and dominance, which are more important categories for me, and hence why I have Whitaker higher.

 

About 10.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

That is an excellent list, and you have obviously put a lot of work into it. But,I have to ask the question, how do you justify Bob Fitzsimmons rankings?

You have listed his longevity as a 7. Fitzsimmons won the middleweight in 1891, and was the best middleweight in the world until the day he lost the world title in 1895. From this day forth he was the best light heavyweight and Heavyweight in the world. By 1903, he was still considered the second best heavyweight in the world (at the time of his loss to Jeffries) and later that year he was considered the best light heavyweight in the world. This puts him at the very top of the tree 12 years after becoming the best middleweight in the world. it wasnt until 2 years later when he lost the light heavy champ to another Jack o brien that he was dethroned as the no 1 light heavyweight. That makes him the no 1 pound for pound guys (or thereabouts) for nearly 15 years. And about 5 or so years later he was still giving the World Heavyweight title contender Bill Lang a decent fight. All this is not allowing for the years before he won the world middleweight title, where he beat everyone going around.

I dont see how anyone can have better longevity than this, surely he rates a 9 or better!

Also, on level of competition, his victory over corbett (as a middleweight) is the biggest pound for pound competition anyone has ever achieved. His victory over the numerous no 1 or 2 heavyweight contenders (as a middleweight or at worst light heavyweight) are enormous pound for pound competition. His only defeats (other than the likely dive) were to two heavyweight top 10 or so contenders (either of which would be a huge scalp if he was successful) and to top 10 all time great heavyweights and arguably a top 10-30 all time great light heavyweight. I dont see how he could have taken on any better competition, yet you have given him just 43.5 for resume. The same as Hagler and MOnzon, two good fighters but both of whom never ventured above the middleweight limit! Even an ATG like Harry Greb, does not have the same victories against ATG heavyweights that Fitz has and he was defeated closer to his prime and against lesser fighters than Fitz ever was.

Dominance also is another debatable question. Fitz was a World Heavyweight champion as a middleweight. What other middleweight, in his time or after was even a leading contender? A few light heavys have done what fitz did, but never a middleweight, and even as a heavyweight. Until being upset by Jeffries, Fitz' KO ratio even against leading heavyweight contenders was simply astonishing. I dont see what else he could have done to be any more dominant. in fact, he was so dominant that he never even bothered fighting in his natural weight class, because there was no one considered good enough to meet him. Very few, probably only henry armstrong could come close in this regard.

I think that you could easily raise Fitz 2.5 in relation to longevity, 10 for competition (for his time he pretty much fought and beat every light heavy and heavy contender, just like langford did) and 5 for dominance (like Robinson and the other greats, there quite simply was not a middleweight or light heavyweight of his time that anyone considers was better than Bob Fitzsimmons - either then or now. That is as dominant as it gets). That leaves 17.5 extra points to add to Fitz total (imo). This takes him to 98.5 which i think is a fair indication of his greatness based on your scale.

 

Good post, and I'll get back to you tonight :good.

 

Arguello too low

 

I agree he is. I'll have to make an adjustment.

 

Good way of doing it, and kudos for even thinking of 120+ fighters :good

 

:good That makes plenty of sense! good post!!

 

:good That was a great read and I for one cannot question your "Rating" of Ruby Robert (Who I consider a top 10 ATG) or your knowledge of the facts! Spot-on!!