This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Boilermaker, don't know exactly how you drew all your comparisons but quite an entertaining and interesting post !
I tried to explain that at the start of the post but it probably didnt come out too well. In short, if Fitz fought a titleholder, i used the person who held that title 100 years later. If Fitz fought a contender (and if the person was a top 3 or 4 contender I tried to equate that to an alphabet title holder) otherwise I tried to use someone with similar standing on a world level as to what the fighter had 100 years earlier. In relation to his middleweight title defences, i basically just used Terry Norris' middleweight fights after he beat Sugar Ray Leonard as it was easier, since he seemed to fight about as often as fitz did and you would expect that each of the challengers would be on about the same level as each other.
Fitzsimmons had 2 years off, after winning the World Heavyweight Championship! Dempsey, Johnson, Willard, Ali and everyone else is given a pass for work done after their layoffs, but no one really seems to give Fitzsimmons any slack for being out of shape or gives him any chance of reversing the result if they had met prime for prime. Anyway, back to rating Fitzsimmons, After the two year layoff, we have Fitz defending the title against the best fighter in the world who was available Jim Jeffries, in 1899. The 1999 equivalent of this is without a doubt Lennox Lewis. Like Jeffries, lewis was a big fighter, who was younger, but would go on to demonstrate himself to be an all time great. Fitz would lose this fight. The next fight is against someone i know little about and seems a couple of warm ups in Geof Thorne, Daley and the large Ed Dunkhorst. It would appear that this was a reasonable middleweight, an excellent but aging light heavyweight and lower top 10 ranked heavyweight. I would guess this might be the 1999 equivalent of say a Jorge Vaca, Virgil Hill, and Andrew Golota. We then have the two best heavyweight champions (outside of Lewis going around) in Ruhlin and Sharkey. We have already had Sharkey considered the equivalent of the aging 1996 Tyson. He was probably a little more prime, but for the sake of consistency Sharkey was probably as highly ranked as the Tyson of 2000, so i will stick with him. Ruhlin, was probably the next best contender around. It is difficult to match him with someone of 2000, but he was considered a good fighter but had some poor losses and never quite stepped up to the class in his biggest fight. I think he might have been similar in rating to a David Tua. We then have yet another 2 years off!, yet still no one really considers Fitz a chance prime for prime against Jeffries! Jeffries, in his prime was the equivalent of the prime and focused 2002 Lewis. After losing this fight, Fitzsimmons had 2 fights against two unknown, presumably club level heavyweights, winning both in the first round, before tragically killing a fighter in this third fighter. For the sake of ease, i have used the three easy fights that Oliver McCall took shortly after he lost to Lennox Lewis. McCall then fought the resilient journeyman Joe Grim and beat the light heavyweight king. In 2008, Fitz fought Greg Hagey. He was nothing special, but he fought some of the top fighters around, losing to as many heavy contenders as he beat and never really threatening to win a world or even alphabet title. In modern terms there are many guys who tried and failed, but i think that his standing might be equated to a win over say a Kevin Mc Bride type. 1999 Lennox Lewis, LKO 11, Jorge Vaca KO1 2000 Virgil Hill KO1, Andrew Golota KO 2, David Tua KO 6, Mike Tyson KO2 2002 Lennox Lewis LKO 8 , Lainhart KO1, Marcus McIntyre KO2, 2003 Sedrick Fields KO1 (died from injuries) 2003 Glen Kelly w6 , Roy Jones Jr w20 2004 Antonio Tarver D6, 2005 Antonio Tarver LKO13 2006 Kevin McBride KO 4 2007 LKO 2 Vladimir Klitchsko 2008 Travis Walker KO1 2009 David Haye LKO12 This is as far as i can go now. When i get the chance i will think about how Fitzys record relates, not just as a middleweight (in all time terms) or a light heavyweight, but i think that he is actually may be underated even as a heavy. Imagine how many top 10 lists he would make today, if he had the exact same records and results but he actually was 6'6 and 250lbs. Anyway, if there is one thing about Fitz, it is that the more you look at, the more you get surprised by him. Today is no exception. Consider this, as i look for comparisons. Fitz isnt done yet. In 4 years time, he will be fighting a young up and coming fighter and will knock him down 3 times on the way to an easy points decision, following this with a No decision 6 rounder against another up and coming fighter. Incidentally, after all this time, he would still weigh under the super middleweight limit. So tell me, which fighter who debuted in 1981 is going to be in good enough to condition in 4 years time to repeat this feat!
Fitz today would have a padded record before getting outboxed by Williams or Pavlik. He'd have a shot at those 2 but would be a whipping boy of the super 6 and likely lose to all of the super 6 competitors. He'd probably be similar to Edison Miranda, dangerous but basic and easy to outbox. If Fitz moved upto HW today and fought say Danny Williams/Virchis, he'd be blasted out in 1-3rounds
I really don't know. He had huge talent but ould need to make style modifications. If he did not he'd get outboxed. If he was trained for the times he'd be devestating at the weight.
No one knows how Fitz (or anyone else) would go today. But, the point of this post is not to suggest that they could repeat what they did. It is to give a modern perspective as to what they actually did do (in their time). Leaving aside style, Modern Nutrition, evolution etc. Based on what was actually done in the ring, where you guys rank Fitz. Or to put it anohter way, if a fighter came through today and did exactly what Fitz did, where would he deserve to rank on all time great lists?
A very entertaining and thought provoking read, Boilermaker. Thanks for taking the time and effort to share it. By any standards, Fitz was a remarkable man! I don't think we will ever see his like again.
