And there you go the evidence is their to analyze for yourself and do your own analysis but again you rely on other opinions.....fear is a terrible thing but it can be overcome
If you think that, then you misunderstand everything that I am saying. I will never adopt an opinion because somebody else held it, and I will never ask you to do so. What I try to do, is bring as many relevant opinions to bear as I can.
I presume if you ask a question you expect an answer.[/QUOTE] Wonder if revisionists might have Fitz as a Jr. MW Champ too.....kinda like Emile Griffith's JMW Championship that he won, defended once, but never really claimed it thereafer. 1963-02-03 : Emile Griffith 152 lbs beat Chris Christensen 150½ lbs by TKO in round 9 of 15 Location: Forum, Copenhagen, Denmark Referee: Robert Seidel Emile Griffith celebrated his 25th birthday by successfully defending his World Junior middleweight title in Copenhagen. He stopped the 36-year old Dane, Christian Christensen in the 9th, after "Gentleman Chris" had been down twice in that round. The towel came flying in. Christensen had also been down in the 3rd. Griffith moved in and out on the Dane, he even could take some extra seconds off to admire the effect of his combinations. The first two knockdowns were from right crosses, the final attack was a two fisted volley. Prior to the fight, in January 1963, Boxing News reported that a member of the Danish parlament intended to stop the event, fearing that Christensen would get seriously hurt. Oct 17 Teddy Wright Vienna, Austria W 15 -Griffith claimed the newly created Junior Middleweight Championship following his win over Wright; This division was established in 1962, when the Austrian Board of Control recognized a fight between Nicko Sabong and Teddy Wright for the "world" championship. (The Griffith vs Wright fight, which took place on October 17, was won by Griffith via a 15-round decision. He defended once 2/03/63), then abandoned his claim.).[/QUOTE] I think revisionism is more like the argument I once prooved Fitzsimmons as a world lightweight champion. From memory it was based on the fact that he won the New Zealand version of the lightweight title (never lost it) and actually eventually defeated the current lineal champion of the time.
[ "I think revisionism is more like the argument I once prooved Fitzsimmons as a world lightweight champion. From memory it was based on the fact that he won the New Zealand version of the lightweight title (never lost it) and actually eventually defeated the current lineal champion of the time".[/QUOTE] Boilermaker...If you did do that....then Great Job. It is always fun to play around with those weird weights and names of Divisions back pre-1920 or so, and try to figure who the "real" Champ was.
What you and others do is throw out stuff you read and then tether all your opinions to someone else's but if you have no opinion and continue to bring to bare everything that keeps you from forming an opinion then what's your point?.... to me it is simpler than sifting through the opinions of the era which I have done just to have an opinion driven by their period correct attitudes towards fair sporting events......though many note the disparities and are in their own way saying the same thing I am
You seem to have looked at Boxrec, and formed an irreversible opinion based upon that! The "opinions of the era" happen to be the only people who actually saw it happen. What other sources would you look at, if you were trying to work out what actually happened, during a 1900 earthquake say?
Now see you make an untrue assumption that because like everyone else on here I also look at boxrec I am extensively read on the era as well but you seem to forget we have 110 yrs of boxing to compare results with that gives us data in which to come to a far better researched conclusion of probability....and perspective and rate the results appropriately...in that era in the writings men like Jeffries and Fitz had red capes the newspaper writings are no less skewed as the eyewitness accounts.....saying one was there and was able to be objective in what one saw and not get skewed by the excitement and emotion of the event is ridiculous...do you know that many of the greatest trainers turn the sound off when studying fighters so they can see the skill, weaknesses etc...and not get distracted by the zeal, sound and chaos......why is it in an era without youtube and magazines and VCR/Betamax, reel to reels that those people were able to see those fights so objectively??? we can study and have the luxury of data they did not have.
my position would be definitely on historical placement, and definitely not on head to head, *but for me, historical placement is dealing with real facts, even if opinion in evaluating those facts enters in. Head to head is mostly guesswork based on opinions which can never be proven, and so I consider historical placement a much more valid way to rate ATG's.
