Criminal rating - a case for Ruby Rob as the greatest of them all

First topic message reminder :

2 quick caveats - firstly at middleweight, whilst secondly - using the azania rating system.

It is widely held that in Fitzsimmons' heyday, boxing was the most popular sport in the world. Yet he rose through the ranks to become the undisputed champion at 160, 175 and the richest prize of all at heavyweight. Yet he, himself found the idea he was any more than a MW ludicrous. Gene Tunney wrote, (1940), that Fitz always considered himself a middleweight, “Fitz, incidentally, was funny about his weight, for, after defeating Corbett, while alone in a Turkish bath with Jim Coffroth, he kept repeating, 'eavyweight champion of the world--and I’m only a bleeding middleweight.” Furthermore - when weighed before the Corbett fight on the morning, privately - he barely tipped the scale at more than 156 1/2. And yet, he still had the power and the ring smarts to be able to land that left to the body.

Has there ever been a harder p4p puncher? Maybe not. Gans and Wilde both packed a fair punch - and deserve considerable mention - but Bob could out hit most heavyweights. It is widely reported that he knocked out 7 men in one night - and that he accomplished this feat in less than 19 rounds. Furthermore - one of these apparently stood 6-7 weighing in at >240lbs. For a man of that size to be KOd by someone practically half his weight is phenomenal.

Unfortunately - much of his career is missing - which is a criminal shame - and perhaps that is why Bob gets a cursory mention in all p4p discussions. He doesn't have a long run of defences a la Hagler or Monzon - so I can't argue for him as MW#1 based on achievements at the weight. However - in head-to-heads - Fitzsimmons does very well indeed.

His defence was underrated. You don't survive with LHW and HW hitters like Choynski, Sharkey, Maher and Ruslin if you're getting caught clean and weighing in at only 160. As shown in one of his famous press cuttings - he had a habit of leaning back off opponents punches - such that they would fail to catch him hard and clean. Further - when caught - he was often able to survive. Choynski nearly had him out of there in their LHW battle - but Fitz was able to last the round and come back to beat the bigger man in the next round.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I include these 2 images as I note that "old timers" were referred to as fighting in an age where it was deemed unsporting to duck. 1 of these 2 fighters is reported as having an excellent defence. The other seems to be doing the same thing in an exhibition; just 100 years before.

As for hitting - he could pick his shots and land at will. Quick, straight and hard punching power. He had stamina to take people over 25 rounds - so no way that he struggles with modern pace. Courage, power, skill, ring smarts, defence - all in abundance and to the extent that whilst remaining a MW - none of this modern bulking up - he was, for a while, the best in the world at all weights over 160lbs.

Fleischer always thought of Fitz as the #3 AT heavy (ridiculous. If Corbett could put him down with a jab what would Lewis do. He was incredible - but he was only 160lbs. What would Martinez do if he fought a Klitschko? Outbox him for a few minutes before being stopped). Charley Rose thought of him as the ATG#1 LHW. I put forward that on head-to-heads - he's the ATG#1 MW - and a far too frequently forgotten fighter.

Who beats him at 160lbs - and how? Discuss.

Lets lock up Jones and Mosley and scrap their records from the history books then. Even those who have either been caught or have admitted to PED use get off almost scott free in boxing.

Just to add like Ghosty said it is wrong..Frankie was an addict but cyclings attitude ethos made it hard for him
Would hate to see boxing go the same way but suspect it has

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lets lock up Jones and Mosley and scrap their records from the history books then. Even those who have either been caught or have admitted to PED use get off almost scott free in boxing.

He took Andros which is accepted in many sports until recently. But if he did take (knowingly) steroids, then his records should be wiped clean off all records.

SSM is more complicated in that he was fed them without his knowledge and gave a poor performance whilst on it.

If we accept use of Andros why not any other PED, it was placed on the WADA list in 1997 while Jones tested positive for it in 2000, ignorance is no defence, as a profressional athlete you or your team should know whats in the supplements.

Andro was banned then it wasnt to add too the confusion so RJJ is ok in my book as it wasn't when he took the supplement

Its been on the WADA list since 1997 without change, it was banned over the counter in 2003 I believe.

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:It surprises me to see so many backing Greb to beat Fitz. Surely his swarming style, trading on his chin, is made for a brutish puncher such as Fitzsimmons.

I'm with Oxy on the debate of the ability of old timers. New doesn't equate to better. Given the task in front of them I don't see why pre 1920's fighters would go about their business in some illogical, skilless way. They too spent their training camps learning the right way to win the fight, they too were competing in a sport with a long, long history. There's no way a 156lb man can not only survive, but defeat a heavyweight of Corbett's quality without a great defense. The proof is in his results.

So how did the jab evolve for arguments sake? A staple of the game now which was almost non existant in the 1890s. How did the approach to dealing with the jab emerge and develop? Were these kind of things just done overnight?

It takes time to develop them, time to learn them, time to pass them on. When the rules of the sport change its only natural that other aspects change as a result and this takes time to come to terms with. The idea that Marquis Rules and gloved boxing takes over prominance yet fighters of that transitional era possess the same technique as decades later doesnt make sense to me.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I believe Oxring has since covered it but these things, even in Fitzsimmons' time had already been around. I think in a sense you and I agree on something, but in a different way.

You say it seems fanciful to assume Fitzsimmons would be just as effective under Hagler's rules. I say Fitzsimmons was no less competent than Hagler, however his abilities, which may have been equal or greater, were built for his own era. Under Fitzsimmons rules I don't think Hagler would be anywhere near as effective. And Vice versa.

In response to Scott posting a picture of two old timers off balance and not looking technically gifted, here's are a couple of pictures where it seems Pernell Whitaker has just been punched in the face:




In those images he's just been punched, doesn't mean it happened all the time. Same as one image of someone blinking doesn't mean they never open their eyes.

If you u read shane mosleys testament that confirms Peds in boxing
If not Shane is a liar and a cheat

Holyfield isn't out there, it's just speculation you have chosen to believe.

Shane Mosley said his statements under oath.I will leave it there .Not speculation just evidence in a court and now i am threatened with repercussions?