Here We Go**UK & Ireland All Time Heavyweight Survey (poll NOW CLOSED)***

Fitzsimmons held the title when there was only one title and I think he deserves 2nd place.

Cooper is tricky, I had him at number 3 but I didn't expect him to finish there. I gave it him the ranking based on longeivity in the worlds top 10 (admittedly the bottom end of it) and his long dominance of the Brit/ Euro titles but TBH I expected him to get voted lower as a result of his poor record when he met the top men in the division and I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who had him ranked lower because of this.

 

I'm sorry, but a 1-2 record in heavyweight title fights isn't the thing of legend, and certainly doesn't justify some of the lauditry comments that have been made on this thread

 

I was only talking about the ranking and that 1-2 record in lineal HW title fights is more than everyone else on that list has bar Lewis.

 

I see where you are coming from but fighters like Willard and Carnera were lineal but you would never call them class acts

 

True, but they'd still be well up on that list we've put together....

 

Not at #2 :hey

 

Both top 5. We're not exactly spoilt for choice ranking Brit HWs, given the company Fitz is good at number 2 IMHO.

 

you questioning Fitz?

i had a big post up earlier, he basically cleaned out the white contender of his day

 

Like you I am not able to question Fitzsimmons because there isn't the body of work for us to look at to make a balanced view...going on his paper record at HW in title fights it certainly isn't stella in the way that some on here would have us believe.

He was being schooled by Corbett, was lucky to survive a long count, and then caught the champ with a hail mary that finished the affair. Corbett then went on to lose 3 of his next 4 fights and by all accounts only beat McCoy because the "Kid" took a dive. Jim Jeffries beat him both times in Fitzsimmons only two other assaults on the title, being KO'ed both times. Although Jeffries called him "the most dangerous man alive", the two KO's don't do his record much good.

Regardless of what you think, the grainy footage that does exist of Fitzsimmons doesn't show a great ringmaster, and to be honest, head to head I would back anyone on my list to take the man apart.

 

H2H nots really the point though. Theres no denying that boxers have improved from that day but that shouldn't deminish what the fighters back then achieved.

 

Gaz, the point that I am trying to make is that we are not really in a position to judge without actually being able to view a body of work. The bits and pieces that I have seen of him look ****ing awful...hands down, potshotting and diving into the clinch. A lucky win over Corbett just doesn't make him #2 on my list

 

But that style brought him success in the era he fought in so it must have been effective. You can look at who he fought, who he beat and make a judgement/ ranking without seeing much of him actually fighting or comparing him style wise to modern fighters with more evolved techniques.

If his record isn't good to get him the #2 ranking then fair enough, but I dont' think the style he employed should go against him. He beat who he beat and he achieved what he achieved in the era he fought.

 

Like I said, a lucky win over Corbett just doesn't cut it...we'll have to agree to disagree :deal

 

No worries....;O)