Pound for Pound Top Ten

That is a big call. Fitz trained basically full time. Running an insane amount. I would love to see how Moore's regiment compares to Fitzsimmons, but i tend to think it they would be equal or better. I dont really see how it is even possible to train harder than the old timers. Different maybe, but harder?

Fitz fought to All 3 time greats in Johnson, Corbett and Jeffries with a 2-1 record. Moore fought 4 all time greats in Clay, Marciano, Charles and Patterson and lost all 4 fights. Quite comprehensively.

In so far as fighting World class contenders, Maher, Sharkey and Ruhlin were as big a names and as dominating wins for Fitz as is possible. There records are every bit as good as Valdez and Co. In fact, probably on the whole a bit better.

On smaller fighters, Gardner, O brien, Choynski, Hall, Dempsey were all great fighters. Just as good as those that Moore fought like Bivins, Maxim, Olsen, Johnson and Co. Both fighters were exceptional in this regard.

Even longevity is a huge call Fitz fought at a world class level from basically about 1886. He would not lose his last world title until 1905, after having won every title from middleweight to Heavyweight. But even after 1905 he still fought at a world class level. Despite losing to heavyweight great JOhnson in 1907, he still fought and was competitive with Heavyweight world title challenger challenger Bill Lang in his very last fight in 1910. That makes him world class for 20 to 25 years. As a middle and/or light heavy he was probably the best in the world for close to this length of time.

Moore started to hit world Class level in about 1944 with his competive loss to Charley Burley, with his first world title in 1952. He was still fighting as a world class fighter when he retired in 1963 against mike dibiase. That makes a period of almost 20 years. It is a close call, but you would have to give the slight edge to Fitz.

All in all, Fitz deserves to be slightly ahead of Moore in pound for pound stakes. In fact, i cant see anyone who has a better record. I will have to think about Robinson later, but i dont see it as good in a pound for pound sense.

 

Moore was a dedicated trainer when he had to be,if he had to make weight he worked out in a rubber suit,and even ran in it ,he lost loads of liquid that way ,and its well known he would chew his meat and leave it on his plate ,he was a very disciplined champ when the chips were down.
As a young man Moore shadow boxed with two irons, he also did countless dips on the bars to build up his arms.
Fitz was a hard scrupulous trainer when he first came to America ,especially with his road work, but after he beat Corbett, he developed a drink problem, indeed he was out on the town the night before he fought Jeffries,whom he underestimated.

 

I agree......




The film in the 1900s was all wrong, utter ****.

 

That would be entirely up to that man, its his personal choice, my personal preference is to only include guys that Ive seen reasonable footage of, that way Im not taking anyone elses word other than my own.

I`ll never disrespect Langford, Greb, Gans & co by ranking them very low or anything like that but I`ll just point blank leave them off my lists (usually with a little side note explaining why before I get lynched, classic style)

Ps. There IS loads of good Ali footage available tho, hence why I rank him no2 of all time.... I wouldnt rank him at all if I couldnt make out the footage.

 

Good idea... it should be split into 2 categories.....

No/**** footage lists | Good footage lists

:good

 

Thanx Paul. Looks like I am up against a Hurricane here without any backup. So feel free to chime in whenever you want as I retort these points. Without further ado....

What? According to my calculations...Fitz is 1-3 against the following men with 3 knockout losses.

 

I'm backing both Suzie and Manassa here. I have basically the same perceptions of Fitz and the fighters of that era. It doesn't even make logical sense that they could or would be as developed or skilled as guys like Moore who fought in the modern version of boxing's golden era. I'm sorry, but the sport did not modernize immediately after the Queensbury rules were instated. That's absurd, and is readily evident on film with pretty much every single fighter of that era that there is footage of.

 

I agree with this, so long as we also take into consideration the strength of the era and the fighters they fought, otherwise Ricardo Lopez is the greatest fighter of all time.