Bob Fitzsimmons: Top 10 p4p all time?

Middle weight was never natural to Dempsey. If he was weighing heavier than welterweight, it was excessive weight on him.
High living took its toll on him. He didn't have his old stamina and agility anymore. Betting (and being picked by experts) means little, see Sullivan-Corbett, as an example. Times were different, and some champions were idols that could not be viewed objectively anymore.

 

Fitz did some quality work at middle weight. Everyone focuses on Dempsey. Fitz defeated a very good Jim Hall who was 37-6-5, in his prime and had not lost a fight in a while. Fitz took him out in four. Fitz also defeated the un-defeated Dan Creedon in a middle weight title defense. Creedon has a recorded record of 19-0-4. Fitz took him out it two!

In summary, it is likely that Fitz beat the three of the best four best middle weights of the 1890's. If Fitz stayed at middle, he could have held the belt for 10+ years. But the money was at heavyweight, so Fitz moved up in class.

 

For my money Charley Mitchell was the best middle weight in the world during the 1880's and even at the time of Fitz' meeting with Dempsey, and I highly doubt Fitz could beat him.
Hall and Creedon might have been good, but nothing special.

 

Mitchell? The part time criminal, full time fighter better at middle than Fitzsimmons? Mitchell, a man Corbett absolutely destroyed in 3 rounds better than Fitzsimmons? Mitchell more of a London prize ring fighter, better than Fitzsimmons in a Queensberry middle weight fight? Who did Mitchell ever really beat? I highly doubt Fitz could defeat Mitchell at middleweight.

 

Is the Corbett fight the only Mitchell's fight you've read about? He was past his prime, plus was ill some time before the fight, which affected his condition (he came in considerably lighter than was expected). He participated in LPR and Queensberry fights alike. Similar question (who did fighter A ever really beat) can be asked about many fighters of that time. Who did Sullivan ever beat, who did the Nonpareil ever beat, etc. It's more about the manner how they were doing that, and in case of smaller fighters, how they were doing against considerably bigger opponents. Mitchell had the science and the punch to beat Fitzsimmons, I think he'd have finished that version of Dempsey faster than Fitz too.

 

Do you think Mitchell beats Fitzsimmons at middle weight? And if Mitchel was a big puncher, where are all of his knockouts?

For those who care, here is the fight report on Corbett vs Mitchell. It does talk a bit about Mitchell's career, and I think lists some un-recorded fights for Corbett.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...91638E233A25755C2A9679C94659ED7CF&oref=slogin

 

Not quite Top 10 IMO, but Top 20 for sure.

 

Mitchell started his career at 10 stone (140 lbs), and grew into natural middleweight, so yes, he'll be at at his best at that weight. I base his having a punch on him quickly stopping much heavier men.

 

On the basis of achievement, I think yes. Fitz lost to Jim Hall on 2-10-1890. He lost to Philadelphia Jack O'Brien on 12-20-1905, nearly 16 years later. In between, his only legit losses were to the huge Jim Jeffries, who outweighed him by 39 and 47 pounds and was undefeated as heavyweight champion. The "loss" to Tom Sharkey was on a questionable foul with Sharkey flat on the canvas at the end of the bout. The "draw" to Joe Choynski came when police aborted the bout with Choynski flat on his back after taking a fierce beating and adsorbing several knockdowns. During this run, Fitz, in shape at best a super-middleweight, won the middleweight, heavyweight, and lightheavyweight titles and held one title or another for more than ten years of a fourteen year period. He beat much bigger good men such as Jim Corbett, Tom Sharkey, and Gus Ruhlin, decisively. Hell, he could be considered #1.

 

I am guessing that much of Fitzsimmons middleweight credentials has vanished into the mists of obscurity. Hall and Creedon were highly regarded at the time and picked by some to beat Fitzsimmons.

Also you might want to take into acount fights at higher weights where Fitz himself was under 160lbs. The Gus Rhulin fight for example.

 

I agree with Janitor. Fitz has big credentials at middleweight.

 

The middleweight limit was not firmly set but moved up and down at the champion's discretion. Tommy Burns tried to challenge Tommy Ryan for the middleweight title in 1905. Ryan insisted the fight be at 154 pounds. Burns wanted 158. The fight fell through, but Ryan's stablemate Marvin Hart stepped in and gave Burns a shot at the heavyweight title instead, which Burns won in a big upset.

 

According to the given weights, Fitz was about 150 to Dempsey's 147, but these were considered middleweight weights in those days. I don't think it impacts a p4p discussion.
I also think it harsh, as others have mentioned, to judge Dempsey washed up. He was coming in off a victory and had lost only one fight.
As for Gardiner being a poor light heavy=on what basis. He had twice knocked out Root and was the only man to have ever beaten Root. He had a stoppage of future heavyweight champion Marvin Hart, had defeated the dangerous Barbados Joe Walcott, as well as Peter Maher, Billy Stift, and Kid Carter, all contenders of the time. His loss to Jack Johnson was to a man 30 lbs heavier. In his recent fights, he was weighing in the 160's, which made him a lightheavy by the standards of those days.
Gardiner seems to have been a respectable, middle row champion who was 26 years old and on a winning streak, not a bad win for a 40 year old codger with more than two decades of fighting behind him.

 

I'm aware of weight limit fluctuations, 11 st, 11st 4lb, 11st 6lb.

Dempsey didn't have a very healthy life, he had to train real hard to get himself in shape during his late years, his body was worn out.

Based on some fight reports I read on him. He was a game, but rather limited boxer skillwise. I'm not basing it on his record alone.