Pound for Pound Top Ten

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Manassa, Aug 5, 2009.


  1. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    A lot of people have Sam Langford high on their lists, for obvious reasons, but i have to say it is hard to see how he can possibly rate ahead of Fitzsimmons. Fitz was middleweight champion for an amazingly long time. He was would have been light heavyweight champion for a similar length of time if such a division existed, and he even became heavyweight champion. All this while weighing, at his heaviest no more than a super middleweight. No middleweight/super middleweight has achieved as much. That is a massive achievement. Langford was great, but as a middle or even light heavyweight, he was never ever the best fighter in the World, Fitz was.

    The more i think of Fitz, the more I have difficulty seeing any fighter that ever proved to be as good at a lower weight. Robinson is often credited with the title, but he was a welterweight who rose as high as light heavyweight, but was never really the dominant champion there and he struggled with the added weight, and to do it, he bulked himself up. Fitz didnt need to bulk himself up and still beat the bigger fighters. I think he was the pound for pound greatest.
     
  2. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    An interesting fact is that you have Benny Leonard # 1 at lightweight and then Joe Gans at # 4, when you base the list on accomplishments. Roberto Duran and Ike are in between. Did Roberto really accomplish more at lightweight than Joe Gans?

    When I was discussing who had the better lightweight resume between Gans and Leonard with Senya not too long ago, he was putting forth some nice arguments for Gans, even though I was saying Benny edged it in comp.

    Gans often gets dismissed because of the pre-historic argument (before 1920's or 40's), and maybe there is some merit in doing so, but if we are talking accomplishments, Gans did it all and then some.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Langford and Greb both beat more great fighters in more weight divisions.
     
  4. 'Ben'

    'Ben' Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,307
    1
    Mar 8, 2009
    I can never really bring myself to argue with anyone's all time P4P list. You can never be to sure who is the best in this era let alone of all time! I think it's more of a case of personal favourites rather than who is the true best. Anyway, don't let me stop you all.
     
  5. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    So Fitzsimmons' punching power is what pushes him up there? Strange criteria - but in that case, what about Moore's punching power? All-time knockout king, remember, and he stopped a fair few durables and heavier opponents.

    Moore was fighting a level of opposition equalled only by Sam Langford and Sammy Angott, a far shout from what Fitzsimmons was up against. Willie Pep had (while decent) a lesser record but he achieved even more than expected, racking up two incredible winning streaks. Fitzsimmons just don't cut it.

    Now I'm one for rating in accordance with the era, but I genuinely don't believe these late 1800s athletes trained as hard as they had to from the 1920s onwards. It just wasn't as competitive.

    **** me, when I compare Fitzsimmons' and Moore's opposition... Big difference. I know he beat better heavyweights than Moore, but did he really? Corbett? Sharkey? Not so sure.
     
  6. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    There's 20-30% of head-to-head ability in it. But even still, if anyone wants to argue Gans against Duran I'm up for that.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Not really. It's his punching power that allowed him to beat his opponents, especially when he moved up to heavyweight where he sseems to have become a bit of a trap-smith.

    As to skillset and ability, it is relevant. In a pound for pound sense, Archie Moore may be an all time hitter. Fitz is an all time hitter from Middle to, arguably, heavyweight. Moore is not.

    Not comparable, though he could hit.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPXHqGiB28

    Fitzsimmons is indeed a level below Moore in terms of competition, though the best fighters he beat were just as good as the best fighters Moore beat. In addition, Moore has 20 plus losses and Fitz has 8. Both fought well past their prime, both fighting at heavyweight, Fitz fighting as a much smaller heavyweight.

    Better? Yep. Smaller? Yep. Hit harder? Yep!

    You've hit the nail on the head as far as ranking Moore in front of Fitzsimmons goes, it should be based upon his longevity. Even then, Fitz was fighting the best of his era from around 1891 until 1909, which is ****ING mad. Moore was busier of course.
     
  8. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    I'm not going to get in a big debate (hate those with a passion, too much effort) but I urge you to reconsider. I would say that Moore lost to the best fighters he faced because they were quite a bit better - and more numerous - than anyone Fitzsimmons faced. And that goes for middleweight, light heavyweight and heavyweight.

    Best way to imagine it is to swap the opposition over, imagine Moore back in ye olden days and then vice versa.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well, you can only judge a man by what he did and how he did it.

    I like what Fitz did better than what Moore did, marginally, reflected in the 4 spots between them in my rankings.

    Two things - first up, there would be no need to think of it as needle. Come back to me any time you feel like it just bump the thread.

    Second, Moore v Fitzsimmons, you pick Moore? Over 15? 175.
     
  10. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Moore without a shadow. Knockout, too, probably late.
     
  11. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    McGrain saw your thread in the lounge i want this thread to kee goign so we see you getting drunker and drunker :lol:

    i know the question aint for me but

    I'd pick Moore at 175lbs and over 15. Heres why....

    Fitzsimmons was a crafty counterpuncher from what i can gather who liked his oppoennts to lead then he would counter them but from looking at the pictures and tiny mount of footage of him his defence is capable if an opponent uses combination punching but getting to do the combination punching will be hard as Fitz wont let you.

    I think Archie is tricky enough to get Fitz to lead then Archie could counter with combinations which is like double cryponite for Fitz. I think hed take a wide UD about 10-5 11-4. However i could see the argument for Fitz
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    I pick Fitz you boys, by stoppage, at some point. His trapping plus his power plus his durability plus Moore's only good chin make that a straight forwards pick for me.
     
  13. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    'Trapping.'

    Don't buy into all that ****.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Think of it as counter-punching.
     
  15. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Yeah but I've noticed a lot of old-time fans and writers exaggerating or just plain lying about what the old fighters could do. I mean, you only have to read about Jeffries' impenetrable crouch to see that.