Smitty Son's Top 20 All Time Fighters List *Forgive the Length*

Well, I think Stewart ranks Hearns in his Top5, tells you how much it's worth :good

 

I think sheer activity is what seperates them. Also when you look at Greb, Robinson, Charles, Langford and Armstrong do you think Fitzsimmons has as many great wins on his resmue as those 5?

Bob was very dominant though. Nearly flawless for over a decade. Who could punch like him? Jefferies said he Corbett was the best boxer but Ruby was the best fighter he ever got in the ring with. I was grossly underrating him before and would have him in my top 15 now. I could see top 10 but top 5 might be a stretch.

 

Fitz record is not completely known. He claims well over 300 prize fights. That sort of activity is well on par with the guys you quoted. Maybe better. He even fought several fighters on the same night, and often one day after the other. Did any of the five you listed do that? Activity is easy to measure and he stacks up with these guys. Fitzsimmons had pretty much as many fights as Greb who leads the claims of these 5 (who are all great and shouldnt be denigrated by the comparisons i make).

What about dominance. NOrmally Sugar Ray Leonard is the king of Kings on this level. Recently on this very site, he scored a virtual shutout in a pole of greatest welterweights ever. An astonishing dominance and probably a correct call by our posters. But compare his welterweight reign to Fitzys middleweight one. Ray Leonard had close points decisions, even controversial or unpopular decisions, in fact he even lost fights on some judges scorecards. And he did lose a fight to middleweight Jake Lamotta. Fitzy on the other hand, absolutely dominated all his opposition and one virtually every fight by knockout against the best opposition of his time, usually within the first four rounds. And when he went up in weight, he didnt just go up one division, he went all the way to heavyweight, and he knocked out all the top contenders. The closest he fought to Jake Lamotta (Tom Sharkey) had a Lamotta like chin, but at heavyweight! Fitz knocked him cold twice!

Henry Armstrong is a great fighter. He could leave the pack, as he is the only person to hold three original weight division titles at the one time. Simply astonishing and technically correct. Fitzy cant compete with this, Can he? Well let us not forget that Fitzy himself held every single title from middleweight to heavyweight, when he (as middleweight) knocked out the legendary Jim Corbett. That is a feat that no one has done ever, and the weight span from middleweight to heavyweight is far greater than the span of Armstrong's title. Technically Fitzy was robbed from holding three titles, for the simple reason that the light heavyweight title hadnt been invented yet! If anyone other than Fitzy had a claim to this (and Fitzy did win it at his first try when well past his best) it was JOe Choynski. Fitzy had already knocked him out cold. Clearly Fitzys accomplishments are every bit as impressive as Armstrongs, and then some.

You mentioned Sam Langford. He was definitely a great. His main claim is not only that he had the great number of fights (that Fitzy matched), but that he fought from Lightweight to Heavyweight. Well, guess what, so did Fitzy. And unlike Langford, Fitzy did fight the world Champions in each division on the way through (that existed during his time) and knocked them out. Langford only managed to fight Johnson and lost. Ok there were reasons but the reality is he didnt do what Fitz did. And while his wins against Wills, McVey and Jeanette and other leading heavy contenders are very impressive, it seems to be forgotten that Langford weight a lot more than Fitz ever did when he fought these guys, and he certainly didnt shut them out like Fitz did to all the top heavy contenders that Fitz fought. Much is made of Langford being to small to beat Jack Johnson when they fought. Well it didnt seem to stop Fitz when he fought Corbett (who was similar to Johnson) and the other top heavys. As good as Sam is, Fitz has him covered in his strongest point, also.

The last fighter you mentioned was Ezzard Charles. To be honest, i dont think he can or should be mentioned on the same level as the other guys. And i am not sure what his claim to the no 1 position (if any) is. Charles was beaten by more middleweights than Fitz, Lost more light heavyweight fights than Fitz and his record at heavyweight isnt as good as Fitzy's. I dont see how he could be rated above fitz.

So, if you think about it, not only does Fitz have reasons for being ranked above those 5 fighters, When you look at each of their greatest strengths, Fitz matches them and pretty much did what all five did! In some ways, his record/legacy that he left was those 5 great fighters all rolled in together!

That is a big statement i know, but i havent seen too many believable arguments against it. I know that there is the evolution of the species/sport argument and that is perhaps the best argument against it. But anyone relying it should be aware that if it is relied upon, then none of the five fighters mentioned will be the greatest, but rather the greatest will come from modern times. Perhaps Mayweather or Manny. To be honest, i find this extremely hard to believe.

 

Boilermaker, I admire your defense ofthe great Ruby Robert. His like we will never see again...A little musical trivia, for what it's worth....When I was a boy A very old uncle of mine [a boxing buff of course] would talk about Fitz, who he saw in person...This old uncle of mine would sing a little ditty about old Fitzimmons...I now remember only a line or two---To the Tune of Tit Willow from The Mikado/ Gilbert and Sullivan...Here goes.. "By the shores of dear Bergen, stands honest old Fitz, With his Wallop, His Wallop, His Wallop------I long ago forgot the rest of the song, but I never forgot the tune...By the way Bergen must be Bergen, NJ where old Fitz trained,so long ago....
P.S. A musical first for ESB...Boilermaker, signing off....B.B.

 

Like others have said, I don't like having Tunney and Loughran in the top twenty, and I would move Joe Gans ahead of Walker personally.

 

They had boxing before 1964?? oh wait that's not me that's 90% of ESB. Great list!

 

Chavez should be on that list.

 

I dont think he should definitly be on it, for example Canzoneri aint on it either and I would rate Canzoneri higher. He could definitly be considered to be on it and I wouldnt argue with him being on it.

Is there not another Mexican you would consider? :good

 

YEy Sanchez probably cracks it, and Chavez should be close to 10 although i dont expect most of you to agree with me on that one. Chavez should be no lower than 20 and yey i have him higher than Canzoneri.:yep
Oh you thought i was gonna say Lopez? Na maybe in a HTH i would say he is that great but because of resume he probably barely makes my top 30 or 35.

 

Fair enough Anarci, I think JCC was great so im not arguing too much.

Your more relaistic with Lopez no i see, us young youtube watchers won you round?

 

No i always had him around the top 30, In fact i still say he beats Changs ass:yep I have Lopez number 3 on my all time Mexican fighter list just a hair above Olivares.

 

just when I thought you was getting somewhere....

 

Based on what? :shock:

 

Im tired of Posting Chavez superior resume and sticking up for him, ive done this a million times. I think ill pass this time believe me i have my legit reasons. But real quick how many other greats have defended there titles over 30X?

Also watching footage of both guys convinces me Chavez is greater.

 

Now I get it you are sarcastic.