Is there any good reason why I shouldn't rate bob fitzsimmons as the goat?

I think he's an outside runner. It's a definite fact that the more you learn the more impressed you become, even relative to the real, real greats. Fitzsimmons is basically awe inspiring. He was unquestionably champion at 154 so for him to be dicing up HW's in that fashion is spectacular, and for a man who could likely make 147 at his absolute peak under modern rules to be discombobulating top HW's is madness.

However, he doesn't have the same top to bottom resume that someone like Langford or Greb does. He was probably the best MW up until that point and likely until Greb. I think appraising him may be difficult in the same way appraising Pacquiao is difficult in that he got better when he moved up, or at least more special, but is never going to be regarded as one of the best HW's because of his size.

Fitz also does not look spectacular on film. He looks unique and special, but not spectacularly good. Appraisal of style and head to head abilities versus the peers of other eras as well as overall skillset take a knock for this reason, and if you are interested in these aspects, he takes a knock. Ranking him above Armstrong or Robinson, who look utterly spectacular, or above the mystery of Greb, is difficult for this reason.

In the end I'm uncomfortable with it, but I don't think it's the worst thing in the world. I think I could put up a reasonable defence of that ranking but I would never really be comfortable with it.

On the other hand, he's now my #5, having pushed Charles and Ali down a spot. When I came to this board he was #10. And they way he has been moving up has been very gradual...a spot this year, a spot next. Who knows where he could land?

 

Fitzsimmons didn't beat a great light-heavweight. He did beat the world's light-heavyweight champion in George Garnder over twenty rounds aged forty. He followed that up with a nice win over the arguably great Jack O'Brien.

As for other weight classes, he beat the great James J Corbett whilst being outweighed by perhaps 20lbs.

At MW he beat Jack Dempsey, likely the p4p ATG, at that time and the most dominant champ in boxing's short history.

Fitz overcame far greater size disparity in his career and has better longevity.

 

Yeah, obviously if you have a heavy lean on how what people would think of you in the gym if you tried to box like an old-timer you will have no old timers in your top 100. But I can't say I really give a ****.

Fitz had an unusual style for even his own era - it allowed him to dominate a division he had no business boxing in. In terms of ranking him pound for pound that is more important to me.