Vic Toweel or Jim Jeffries, who had the tougher run to the title?

Carruthers looks a very dangerous puncher.Toweel does not appear to be able to handle his power and physicality ,I wonder if he was weight drained ?

 

"pure 100% bull****"

Seems to be.

"intentional"

More poor reading skills. This is what it said on IMDB.
--------------------------------------------------

Choynski down three times in the fifth round, once in the sixth

"Sharkey rushes Choynski across the ring to the ropes in Sharkey's corner and Joe goes through the ropes and falls to the floor below about four feet lower than the ring, directly in front of Captain Lees. The Chief of Police arose and raised his finger, and the police commenced to clamber into the ring. The referee called 'draw.'"--SF Call
---------------------------------------------------

I just assumed "down" meant knocked down. Still would, as a matter of fact. The paragraph does not make clear that Sharkey pushed him out of the ring and that "rushes" does not mean like Firpo rushed Dempsey.

My mistake and I am totally to blame.

That said, the reporter in this article is so hyped and emotional that I have serious doubts that he is giving us the lowdown on this fight either.

It is interesting that the Sharkey who would never fight again in SF was soon in the ring matched with Jeffries.

**Original research--I will let that to you young guys. I am too old and too busy.

Bottom line--I am not deep enough into Jeffries to question ALL the fighters of his era--Corbett, Fitz, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Choynski, Armstrong, etc. The generation that knew them thought Jeff did a good job of cleaning out the division, and I'll accept their opinion, like Burt does with Dempsey.

As for how Jeff does in later eras, who knows? I have my doubts, but a man only fights in his own era and Jeff basically did an impressive job. All time rankings, except in the sense of achievement against the opposition available, and not head to head, don't matter to me. I guess I'm a realist about boxing.

 

The reporter has the advantage of actually having seen the fight. Young guys ? I am 63. Joe Louis was champ when I was born.

Jeffries did a decent job , but retired when he could have fought Johnson. Jeffries last defence was a farce.

 

"he's seen as one of the best there ever was and there's not much arguing with that"

Except the folks who actually saw him fight seem to have argued with it.

It might help to deal with a few questions

1--How good were all those fellows he defended against during the war? He was fighting in a division in which traditionally many top fighters have come from Great Britain and Europe. Clearly he couldn't fight them during WWII.

2--Did he fight the best available after the war? The Ring yearly ratings create doubts.

Bottom line--is Ortiz a case in which just looking at the defense record gives a distorted perspective? Yes, there are a lot of defenses over a long period of time, but were there better men out there?

on Lewis--get to the main point, though. If the heavyweights continue to grow until Lewis and his opponents are viewed as small, does this lesson his achievement in any way? You appear to be arguing that the increase in size of heavyweight boxers in the last century diminishes the achievements of Fitz and Jeffries.

 

"Young guys? I am 63."

Spring chicken compared to me.

"Jeffries did a decent job, but retired when he could have fought Johnson."

Very fair point.

"The reporter has the advantage of having seen the fight."

That doesn't necessarily make him a fair observer. This guy seems rather hyped. I would ask why, for example, Sharkey was not DQ'd if there was that much fouling?

 

As Fist of Fury mentioned Toweel seemed to struggle with weight, Carruthers had many problems with weight too late in his career, which may have contributed to his retirement. Bennett had amazing power and any fighter meeting him head on (which Vic may have) payed the price. Carruthers was a superb boxer/pucher with great footwork and accuracy, plus a fair amount of whack, which proved too much for the fighters mentioned. Here's a brief clip on Bennett/Carruthers/Toweel...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFGBCOyGxi8[/ame]

 

Vic Toweel moved to Oz in the 80's and spent the rest of his days there. I seem to recall a Toweel fighting in the 80's, I think he was Vic's nephew. Decent local level fighter

 

Thanks for the clip.:good Good post!

 

"I would take his 20 plus successful defences over Fitzsimmons 0."

Certainly is more statistically impressive, by far.

It raises the issue of why it was Fitz who was rated more highly--and in the heavyweight division--than was Ortiz.

One answer--Ortiz lost to Dade (later reversed) and Toweel while Fitz lost only to Jeffries with Jeffries being viewed by contemporaries as a much more formidable opponent.

Second answer--Fitz won his title by ko'ing Jim Corbett while Ortiz won his title from Lou Salica, and contemporaries judged Corbett a much more formidable fighter.

Third possible answer--Other than Jeffries, Fitz might have done a better job of beating the top heavies of his time (Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, Choynski, Maher) than Ortiz did beating the best bantams of his time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis-appearances----Okay, but I still think the question is worthy. Let's take Jeff. Most would probably say he was the best fighter in the world between about 1898 and 1903. That is an great achievement in the world he lived in.

Does it become a lesser achievement if it is judged he couldn't defeat the much larger opponents of a century later?

 

"Fitz preceded by 3 champions"

Oh, come on. Fitz held his rankings for decades. This is the rankings from the 1976 Ring Record Book--post Fleischer

1--Joe Louis
2--Jack Dempsey
3--Jim Jeffries
4--Jack Johnson
5--Rocky Marciano
6--Gene Tunney
7--Bob Fitzsimmons
8--Jim Corbett
9--Muhammad Ali
10-Joe Frazier

And bantamweights

1--Pete Herman
2--Panama Al Brown
3--Johnny Coulon
4--Eder Jofre
5--Kid Williams
6--Joe Lynch
7--Sixto Escobar
8--George Dixon
9--Fighting Harada
10-Harry Harris

Guys before Ortiz. Guys after Ortiz. But no Ortiz.

As for Fitz, in the 1978 poll by the Boxing Writers of America commissioned by HBO, Louis, Ali, and Marciano were the three top heavyweights.

Fitz was #3 in the lightheavies, behind Moore and Conn.

Fleischer ranked him the #3 heavyweight.

I remember plenty of lists of the top heavies during the fifties and sixties, and Fitz was a fixture in those days in the top ten.

Why wasn't Ortiz at bantamweight?

"laughed out of the room"

No problem. I have noticed over the years that fools laugh loudest.

Laughter isn't an intellectual rebuttal to questions about the quality of Ortiz' defenses, and thus the overall quality of his reign. And so the doubts linger unchallenged.

 

"one of the greatest bantamweight champions ever"

That is actually what I disputed mainly. If numbers make greatness, Ortiz might be judged great. But I think we should probe a bit deeper.

"My point is that an inactive 165lb fighter is easier for a 210 lb great to beat than one of the greatest bantamweight champions ever is for a bantamweight to beat."

And I disagree totally. Fitz WAS in the heavyweight division of that era (as Dempsey and Marciano were heavys in their era) and the division is unlimited. The issue is NEVER are you a big heavy or a small heavy. It is are you the BEST heavy active. Jeffries was in his day and in beating Fitz he beat the next best heavy out there. Other than Jeff, Fitz beat the next best guys out there.

Playing games with size means nothing. Heavyweight boxing has nothing to do with p4p.

"inactive"

This might be a valid point, but you are perhaps carrying it too far while ignoring that Ortiz was losing rather regularly by the time he got to Toweel.

I agree to disagree.

Been fun debating you. Have a good day.

**I might add here that head to head matchups are fun to consider sometimes, but I don't rate fighters on them at all. Just on achievement in one's own era against the competition available.