Top 10 head to head under 190lb all time?

Sullivan retired after the Kilrain fight in 89. The rest of his "bouts" were mere exhibition tours and with the same guy or two night after night with few exceptions. He had suffered at least one alcohol induced coma, was given up for dead after a bout with typhus (admittedly never the same afterward) and was generally used-up after years of heavy drinking and non-stop touring. The Corbett fight was what we would call a "comeback" of the sort Jeffries had against Johnson.

Jackson didn't really hit public consciousness in the US as a possible contender to the title until the draw with Corbett in 91. Even then, most observers said neither fighter (Corbett or Jackson) would have been a match for a prime Sullivan. And again, these same observers considered Sullivan retired.

The Sullivan-Corbett bout was akin to Ali-Berbick. A Sullivan-Jackson bout would have been no different. In regards to whom Sullivan chose to be led to the slaughter against, yes, he was what we would call today a racist, tho I am not sure how out of step with the times he was. He boasted about being able to beat Jackson after his draw with Corbett and all the press statements against both. Choynski, among others, actually picked him to win should such a fight occur. But the reality was that Sullivan was done, fat, debilitated and used up by alcohol, disease and occupation.

 

Pertaining to Fitz...We have no film of him in his prime. The earliest film we have of Ruby Robert was in 1897 when he was already 34 years old when he kod a prime heavier Jim Corbett with a solar plexus punch....At 34 years of age most top fighters are finished
yet Fitz kod Corbett...So for posters to spout that how Fitz cannot be seen on film holds true, BUT should not be held against him, anymore than we have no film of Lincoln
giving his immortal Address at Gettysburgh, but we today have the content of his speech... And so with Fitz who at abour 160-5, flattened the likes of Jack Dempsey [N]
Dan Creedon, Peter Mahon, James Corbett, Gus Ruhlin,Tom Sharkey, who might have been as tough as Marciano, battered a 50 pound heavier Jim Jeffries for many rounds before,broken hands and age did Fitz in...All this past his prime ,outweighed by many pounds yet Bob Fitz accomplished all this weighing but 165 pounds,and in his late
thirties...I don't understand some posters who rate the great LW Joe Gans so highly,
yet the SAME JOE GANS claimed Bob Fitszimmons as his master and idol...
And one more item...In those days there was a tough heavyweight named Sandy Ferguson from Mass. He fought all the heavyweights, tough battles.A strong man who fought Sam Langford and was Bob Fitz's sparring partner ...When asked who would have won between Fitz and Langford at their best, exclaimed Fitszimmons, for what it's worth...

 

How do you rate the depth and quality of Sullivan's opponents?

 

Fitz is a god. For a long time he was my choice for goat.

But in terms of h2h ranking, let's just say it isn't difficult to find footage of fighters looking superior to footage of ruby. Picking a man in a fight based on paper record might be fine for some, but for me it aint.

 

As a firm believer in a steady deevolution of the race, they are by definition better than all who followed and weaker than all who preceded.

 

What about Fitz then?

 

Fitzie!

 

i dont understand these h2h rankings when one man gets to fight in five ounce gloves but the rest must fight in 10 ounce gloves. resto had about an ounce removed from his gloves, you can look at the state of collin's face to see the effect. there is a reason of course why bareknucklers and early glovers fought from that stance: you couldnt effectively block punches (blocking is a very recent advent that was allowed by the use of bigger gloves) and just a quick hard straight left may knock you out or cut you horribly. based on these things their stance makes perfect sense. im unsure how it can be considered primitive when the sport had already been around for something like 200 years. thats quite a lot of time for development. it seems to me a stance like winky wright or joe frazier would really make no sense against a man in those kinds of gloves. that leaning back, hands out stance makes so much more logical sense than does a hands up face first stance when you consider all these things.

 

Fitz has always troubled me in terms of ranking. Much of the same criteria that I use to rank Langford so hig applies to fitz as well

 

Well I think only armstrong achieved more than fitz. His resume considering his era is good also.

On film though, he doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Maybe if we had footage of his fight with np i'd be saying otherwise.

 

Interesting:think because of 1936-1938 I've had Armstrong as high as 3 right now i have him down at 6 I think. Still for accomplishments id rate both langford and greb higher

 

well put as always burt. Fitz like greb cannot be placed all time based on the footage
we have or don't have... only their record and resumes can be used. For what its worth i think langford would have the edge in strength fitz the edge in accuracy leading to an all time great battle

 

I did follow the latter part of Jonses career, and it was the the abruptness of his fall that lead me to the aforementioned conclusions.