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

Bull****. Wyatt Earp knew all those dirty tricks of boxers. Fitz should've stuck to head-shots if he wasn't able to land clean body-shots.
Fitz knew he had no business in the heavyweight division, and he had no business in the lightheavy-division either.
My knowledge is brilliant. Those boxers are no ATGs and no HOFers, hence chicken****.

 

I am not prepared to argue with you.
I beleive you to be either a wind up merchant, or a fool ,probably both.
I haven't read a post by you, that has convinced me that you would not be more suited to another subject,preferably one that you have a rudimentary grasp of.
Janitor can continue to embarrass you if he wishes, my time is too valuable.

 

:rofl

......then why this post? I detect a hidden nuthugger. I pity you foo'.

 

I personally have him at 12, but you could easily argue for top 10. Its been said so many times before, but to make that jump from middle weight to winning the championship against an ATG in Corbett is maybe the most impressive feat in boxing history. Ultimately his legacy does suffer by the lack of quality footage, which is unfornuate.

 

One of the intriguing things about Fitz is at what point did he actually become the best prizefighter in the world and how long was he the best fighter in the world. Technically the corbett win was his recognition, but if you accept that he was a better fighter than corbett and had his number, is it possible that Fitz was actually the best fighter in the world for a much longer period. Arguably, in 1892 when Corbett took over from John L as the number 1 man, Fitz was possibly as good or better than Corbett so that gives him a good 7 years as the best fighter in the world (although like with Tysons pre spinks early reigns he would not have been recognised as such).

this begs the question. At what time if ever could Fitz had fought and defeated John L Sullivan? When you think about it, Fitzys reign as a heavy (certainly if they had multiple titles like today) could very easily have been just as impressive as the two Klitchskos reigns are today (on paper). When you consider that he was actually a middleweight (not a bulked up middleweight) for most of this reign and a Supermiddleweight for all of it, and then you factor in what he did when ancient and an alcoholic, and even when pre prime and a lightweight, you start to improve even further (if that is even possible for many of us) the pound for pound legacy of the great Bob Fitzsimmons.

 

Well when he beat Maher in 1892 he became a legit top HW contender. Sullivan, Jackson, Corbett, Slavin and Goddard were the top men at that precise time. Yes he could consievably have beaten any of them, with Jackson the big ask.

 

Heavyweights deserve more respect.

They are after all the best fighters in the world when you ignore weightclasses.

So perhaps you can place him above Armstrong.



Ali was the greatest boxer ever though, that is a lock, simply because those who don't even follow boxing will decide that in the end.

 

Well, most of the classic forum refuses to rate Roy Jones as a top 10 ATG , even though he matched Fitz's claim to having won belts at middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight. Therefore, if these things don't buy Jones a top spot then they don't make Fitz the GOAT.

 

What a load of horse****.

 

he tells the truth except it was a british sport as well , after all it began in england.

in fact :
1. ola afolabi beats them all.
2. see fitz's losses to see his worth. he was powerful but severely flawed.
3. how can one expect that no innovations / improvements will occur in
about 120 years ?

 

Correct.