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

It was an exhibition staged to test in principal, whether a boxing match could be filmed.

It was essentialy a pioneering experiment.

 

Jack Dempsey - All time Great, Reigning world champion, Jim Hall -2nd best fighter in the world at time, Joe Choynski - All time Great light heavy/heavy, Jim Corbett - All time Great Heavyweight, George Gardner - All time Great light heavyweight, Peter Maher, Gus Ruhlin, Tom Sharkey - Top Contenders of the time, Many other top contenders not mentioned.

You are not serious, but it is worth pointing out for those who might actually take notice of you.

Jim Jeffries(heavyweight) - Arguably the greatest of all time and undisputably one of the top 20. Both fights were absolute wars, where only Jeffries unbelievable chin saved him from defeat. It isnt to be forgotten also that Fitz had already one the title, and as with every fighter that ever lived most do slip a little once they have the title. It is doubtful that Fitz would be any different.

Philadelphia Jack O Brien (light heavyweight) - All time Great light heavyweight, a good battle where age eventually caught up with Fitz.

Middleweight Title - Never Lost.

Heavyweight - Interestingly, won a claim as champion against Peter Maher, Was robbed by Wyatt Earp when DQd Against Jack Sharkey. Won 2nd Crown against Jim Corbett and like most other champions took the year off and toured with exhibitions etc but did lose his first title defence.

Light Heavy - Beat George Gardner, defended once against Jack O'Brien and lost his rematch.

Middleweight Title - Held from 1891 to 1897. Defended too many times for me to be bothered to count, also scored too many KOs against opponents during this time for me to count, even if i could be bothered, And fought even more exhibitions, against a variety of great fighters, at a time where exhibitions were often described as such in name only due to boxing being outlawed.

 

:good Well said!

 

:good A superb post and a great read!

 

Exaggeration at its best. After all those meaningless words Fitz's resume still doesn't look better.

 

Is that another thing that is so obvious that no logic is required to substantiate it?

 

Fitz def didn’t achieve enough to call him Goat. Wins against Jack Dempsay and James J Corbett are not enough. After he won the middleweight title against Dempsey, only two title defenses followed against Jim Hall and Dan Creedon, two boxers who are unknown more or less. Fitz gained the Heavyweight title against Peter Maher and lost it to Tom Sharkey in the following bout. Fitz won it back against James J Corbett and lost it again to James J Jeffries. The attempt to gain it back against Jeffries failed, maybe the reason to try a shot at the Lightheavy-title against George Gardner. After he lost to Philadelphia Jack O’Brian he never tried a shot at the LH-title again. So where tf does that claim for Goat come from? Regarding quality of opponents: who tf is Jim Hall, Dan Creedon, Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey, George Gardner, Jack O’Brian? Those opponents are no ATGs or HOFers like Jack Dempsay, although Dempsay’s resume’s pure myth rather than achievement. Fitz’s resume is nothing else than average.

 

Fitzsimmons fought 33 times while he was midleweight title and his title would have been on the line in any of those fights where both men weighed under the middleweight limit.

Since the information surounding many of these fights has been lost we cannot readily say how many times he defended his middleweight title.

 

But therein lies the problem whenever these questions come up. To place a pre 1920s fighter into any kind of modern context always requires a concession one way or another. "If so and so wore different gloves" or "If so and so was going fewer rounds" and so forth and so on. It becomes an apples and oranges game.

I think to question their toughness and their stamina, and to a certain degree their power, is patent nonsense. I think to doubt how effective they'd be plunked down cold turkey with their actual styles and conditioning under modern rules, and at the highest levels of the sport, isn't nonsense. Unfortunately that's what we have to do unless we want to launch into a whole world of complete hypotheticals. In this sense history does work against them, simply because the balance of great fighters fall into an era where we have the tools to compare them with some accuracy (film, consistent rules, etc.).

I think the best we can do is say that these men were great for their time, and include them somewhere on our all time lists. I don't think you can possibly call them the greatest who ever lived, there just isn't enough to go on.

 

What the people who are most critical of Fitzsimmons fail to apreciate is how much of his record has been lost.

Here is the boxrec resume of Jack Hickey, final record 0-2-0.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10806&cat=boxer

If you read the contemporary press then you learn that Hickey was the Irish Champion and that many expected him to give Fitzsimmons a close fight or even bring about an upset.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

So much for boxrec.

Now here is the boxrec record of Con Coughlin, final record 1-5-0.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10814&cat=boxer

The guy would have been forgotten by history if he had not died from his injuries when he fought Fitzsimmons. He was at the verry least a fringe contender and a touted prospect.

This is how the contemporary press viewed him.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

So how much more will we find if we continue digging?

 

Fitz was robbed against Sharkey ,he kod him with a legit bodyshot ,but referee Earp called it foul.
Fitz was 40 years old when he won the Lhy crown,when he lost to O Brien he was 42,that's why he didnt get another shot.
If you don't know who those names are you asked about the fault is in your lack of knowledge, not Fitz's lack of credentials.

 

Hah, this is ridiculous.

You can't say a guy was 'unknown' if you've not even bothered to follow the papers of the time.

Dan Creedon was not a bad fighter, nothing spectacular, but Fitz blasted him.

Jim Hall on the other hand was very good indeed, very similar to Fitzy boy himself with his skill and power of punch.

Nonpareil was a great performance but ol' Jacky boy at that point was coming down heavy with TB.

 

Creedon was a "name fighter" even when he was fighting past his prime.

If Joe Walcott or whever beat him into a heap they were always praised for it.

 

In comparison to his other wins.

But yes, Fitz had the punchers problem of making fighters look distinctively average. His fights with Creedon and Hall were one-punch affairs.