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

Who else is gonna be second? Every other British heavyweight is absolute dog-shite and thats just the way it is.

 

before he won the title he beat top contenders of the day and after he lost the title he basically cleaned out the top contenders (all white i should note though)

Also he did go 1-2 in HW title fights but some guys on the list never even had a title fight let alone won a title fight so you have to take into account his wins over contenders and all that aswell.

I dont think his win with Corbett was lucky he was getting 'outboxed' but Corbett was starting to tire then Fitzsimmons took him out with a well placed counter combination.

As for the film footage there is a video on Youtube called the devolution of boxing whats shows a modern fight reduced to the quality of the old timers film and honestly it looks terrible the modern fighters in it. Also i have studied Fitzsimmons quite alot and trust me this guy was brilliant. Every who researches Fitz really thinks very highly of him.

see above

 

A controversial win over Corbett doesn't cut it, nobody ever mentions the long count in that fight.

 

Thanks for your detailed response, but I just don't agree...I honestly think that Fitz is vastly overrated and he did have a lucky win over Corbett. These kind of lists are all very well but I do think that they should be split into eras so at least we can compare like with like (pre Dempsey, Dempsey - Liston, Clay - Present)...without being able to judge a man outside of his paper record I find it impossible to pick anyone pre the 1930s

This is an interesting write up of the fight taken from a 1933 paper...it sounds a really wild affair, nearly on a par with a night at the Donny Dome http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...6ELAAAAIBAJ&sjid=01QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4663,1729042

 

Bloody hell IceMax!! I had enough trouble of thinking of 10 decent heavies over the last 120 years, if we're splitting them up into eras we'd be ranking the top 3s....

 

I know, it would be a bit embarassing :yep

 

Very possibly true but you completely avoided the whole point of my post, which other British heavyweight would have beaten Corbett at that time controversially or no?

 

The whole point is you compare fighters on what they did in their era. Yes their technique might suck and not look impressive by todays standards but that is not the point. They were on a level playing field at the time so their achivements are just as valid. What is the need to split them into eras?

 

None probably, but thats not the point of the list...we are supposed to be picking the top 10 British Heavyweights of all time, not "at that time".....(Tom Sharkey actually has a win over Fitz :deal, even if it was a DQ)

 

:huh

 

Yep, thats how I see it.

 

You are missing the point. You can take their achievements in their own era quite easily and compare them to a modern fighters in his era. One has better achivements. It's not about what they looked like or matching them together.

That's how we can say Willie Pep was greater than Paulie Malignaggi.

 

theres a reason its not mentioned as some dont think it was along count.

no we dont need eras to rank. We can use what they achieved in that era.

Wyatt Earp was the referee

 

Well I deviated from the point of the thread to prove what I was saying but regardless I still cant see who you could legitimately put in front of Fitz barring Lennox.

And I think we all know what happened to Sharkey in the rematch.