Fitz enjoyed a size advantage at MW, but he was only two pounds heavier than Dempsey on the scales the day of the fight. When he stepped up hi fought at a huge dis-advantage, nullifying any edge he enjoyed at the smaller weight. It's a little better than "nice". Corbett was arguably the best HW pre-Dempsey and Fitz stopped him coming up from 154lbs. It's one of the greatest wins in all of boxing. Not really. Fitz was the best MW of a weakish era by miles, just like Hopkins, but he has on his resume one of the greates MW's in history who also happened to be arguably the greatest fighter of his era p4p (until Fitz came along) I don't find that particularly objectionable, but I don't think you can call your list "greatest fighters ever" if this is the case. Fitzsimmons has a solid case for top 10 honours (he makes mine) and any ATG list should reflect this.
Well, he was the Sugar Ray Robinson of his day. But as a late 1890s/early 1900s fighter you probably won´t rank him
Would you put Sullivan on your list? We are talking strictly queensbury rules right? I just don't feel we can properly judge fighters we don't have flim on except Greb but Greb fought fighters we have decent film on and Greb's record was supernatural. I think also the fact I have a lot more I wanna learn about 20th century boxing before I get back into the late LPR/early queensbury era.
I'm not trying to knock them it's just I don't feel I can properly judge them as fighters. At least not yet.
I recently parted my lists into a pre1920 list and after 1920 list. Makes it easier to compare the fighters.
No, I don't tend to rank Sullivan, but Sullivan did a lot of work under London Prize Ring Rules. Fitz didn't. Ya got Holman Williams on there, Charlie Brown!
Not easier than ranking a fighter we have glimmers of film of, surely? I don't have a problem with you not ranking Fitz because you are not comfy with the era, but I do have a problem with you putting him in the forites because of the era. You just can't have him below Ruben Olivares and Fighting Harada, it makes literally no sense.
Fair Enough. I don't rate that win over Corbett as high as you though. Jim won the title over a fighter that saw his better days and with a different set of rules. He might have came in 3rd as a pre-Dempsey heavyweight but I don't see how you could rate him about Jeffries and there is no way he was better than Johnson. Not a top 12 heavy in my book and maybe not a top 15. Top 20 though. Queensbury was in it's infancy at that time. I'm not one of those that think boxing was magically transformed in the late 50's and early 60's into a better sport but there certainly had to be a learning curve and better fighters had to develop over time with the new rules.
My top 10 is very similar to yours. The only placing I really disagree with is Fitzimmons. I have him at #12 and he seems very low on your list.
I missed Demon Joe Walcott too. Oh well. Thanks for the responses guys. I'm looking up this Tommy Ryan and he seemed like quite a fighter. Anyone that can go 76 rounds is a hard *******.
One of the best lists Ive seen. People will never agree on exact ordering but I dont see anything too outrageous in there...which makes a change. Except perhaps for Jack Johnson, I dont know what your criteria is but that man's resume really does not stack up. Didnt he loose to Willard? Past it or not