Do these victories over aging greats carry any weight?

Compared to wins over Ross, Ambers, Arizmendi, Montanez, Garcia, Sarron, Bass, Casanova, Zurita, etc.?

 

Fitzimmons lost to Jack Johnson in 1907 when Fitz was Forty Three years old....
Archie Moore lost to Clay in 1962 when Archie Moore was Forty Nine years old...
Bob Fitzimmons [43] was an OLD MAN when he fought Johnson...
Archie Moore [49] was an OLD MAN when he fought Clay'''.
But Henry Armstrong in 1943 was only THIRTY ONE years old when he
lost to Ray Robinson...I saw that fight in MSG, and Ray went EASY on his idol...
So Fitz and old Archie were old men, and their defeats were meaningless.
Robinson's easy win over a fading 31 year old Armstrong showed us that
Ray would have beaten Henry Armstrong in his prime too.....

 

Exactly what I was going to say.

Armstrong was not the fighter he had once been, but was still good enough to have been a top WW contender and have beaten other contenders before and afterward.

Moore was obviously ancient, but had crushed a legit HW contender in Lavorante earlier that year.

Fitz is the only one that warrants no real credit IMO.

 

I think the problem with Fitz was the arm injury, more than the age or skill. To be honest, i have never heard of a boxer, before basically telling the crowd he is using one arm only but still taking the fight anyway, and against one of the best young heavyweights ever. When you think about it, as far as courage is concerned, Fitz has to be right up there at the top of the tree.