Has Bob Fitzsimmons Got A Legit Claim As The Gretest Fighter Of All Time?

As I said I think quality of performance in the key factor. Quality of opposition is a key factor too.

Plus Fitz beating champions that span a weight of 23lbs isn't that significant an achievement anyway.

Being a 167lb man just wasnt a big disadvantage back then, Tommy Burns was a 168lb heavyweight HW champ himself and he was giving up more height. Plus he made more defenses than fitz and was 4inches shorter.

Should Burns be rated as the greatest fighter of all time?

 

Yup. Jacobs was Tyson's co-manager back in the early days before his death. He was also an avid historian and posessed a wealth of fight footage, therefore a debate between he and one of the premier boxing historians of all time in Nat Fleischer is something I'd be very interested in hearing about. I would go into more depth about Jacobs's own athletic prowess but that would be besides the point.

I know much about both of the men at hand. You don't have to explain their credentials to me, just what took place amidst their debate.

 

You are something else.

 

You are verry liberal when it comes to handing your favourite fighters wins over fighters from other era's without them even needing to get into the ring.

You wonder that they even bother to train when they can get wins over legends of the past for so little effort.

The reason why boxing matches are held is because of the inherant uncertainty.

The bottom line is that Corbett was the best heavyweight of his era and Ruiz wasn't.

Toney didn't beat Corbett, Fitzsimmons beat him.

To equal Fitzsimmons acomplioshment Toney would have had to clean out the heavyweight division and establish himself as the undisputed champion.

He didn't...........

 

if you wouldn't laugh at someone ranking him at #1 then yes a case could be made

 

Burns was a pound for pound great, though not as great as Fitz because he didn't win the title at 160 and he didn't clean out the heavyweight division like Fitz did.

The most laughable part of your post is when yopu say that being a 167lb man was not a big disadvantage back then.

Being a 167lb man back then meant that you were a heavyweight, which meant that you might have to fight some 230lb monster to win a title. Jem Mace weighed under the curent middleweight limit and he had to fight 230lb Sam Hurst to win the title. I wonder if he felt that being a 160 lb man wasn't much of a disadvantage.

 

Ofcourse it wasnt a disadvantage, the good big men were 180-200lbs, Roy Jones light heavyweight opposition weighed these weights in the ring. Plus Jones opponents clearly have better skills

Jones took on a 235lb champion, who wasnt fat like any of the big men of Fitz's day. Jeffries was a super heavyweight then but only the same size as Ruiz, plus Ruiz had better jab and straight right.

Ruiz wasnt undisputed but given the white champion of those days didnt fight the coloured champions, they werent undisputed champions either

 

Its not only Toney, he was just 1 example, most of the Middleweight and Super Middleweight champions of the last 50years would beat Fitz and Corbett

Carl Froch is rightfully considered pre historic in todays boxing but hes still just as skilled as Fitz and Corbett if not more so

 

Plus Duran beats Fitz at 160, the slow open, technically poor, leaning back, 1 punch at a time style of Fitz's would be made to measure for Duran.

 

He wouldn't fight that way against Duran.

He only employed that style against larger oponents.

If you want to see how Duran fares against Fitzsimmons then watch the Hearns fight.

 

I'm loving this.

 

Fitz isnt half as quick or half as skillfull as Hearns