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.

I didnt say what Barry said was true but as a figure of the day who boxed and witnessed the changes in the era his opinion deserves at least some consideration.

The plethora of "boxing is dying" quotes have pretty much been rendered false by time.

Who wrote that quote anyway? Were they credible? The 40s and 50s produced many of the greatest ever boxers so I would happily dismiss whoever wrote that peice as completely incorrect.

What I dont understand is simply how boxers are expected to have a technique as for Marquis ruled gloved boxing given it was a signifant change from the loosely regulated bareknuckle period before that. Somebody had to develop the jab, somebody had to develop footwork yet its seems to be assumed that in no time at all fighters largely trained during the bareknuckle era had the same skills as later generations who had spent decades learning and developing them.

Nearly all the newspaper reports I read of the days point to much cruder grappling style boxing with heavy emphasis on holding and wrestling, body punching and low workrate as well fighters much more easy to hit.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

He weighed in at 1551/2 the morning of the Corbett fight.

He had the upper body of a HW with spindly little legs - strong enough to carry him and hold him but without excess flesh..

What source has him weighing in at that?

Bob Davis, rep by Monte Cox. While we're there, the National Police Gazette have him at 155,1/2 for his bout against Creedon and most sources have him at 150,1/2 for his bout with nonpareil Dempsey.

For the Corbett fight though? Hes 167 for it according to the NY Times.

manos de piedra wrote:For the Corbett fight though? Hes 167 for it according to the NY Times.

And ironically oxring wrote the boxrec and how to use it article himself!

According to the Guiness World Record he weighed 165lbs to Corbetts 184lbs which is a fairly hefty difference.

John L Sullivan is often labelled as a bare knuckle fighter but most of the time he fought wearing gloves as did most of the fighters before it became widely accepted.

This is the Fitzsimmons Jeffries picture
http://www.fitzsimmons.co.nz/html/gallerypages/photojeffriesfitz.html
Im not great at guessing weights but Jeffries was 6'2" and 205 for that fight
Fitz looks taller than Jeffries and bigger than 167 to me

Jeffries looks huge compared Fitzsimmons in that picture, in each and every area he's more muscular.

If time permits when I get home I will check and try and get something definitive but from what I remember the reports of weights often varies as there was no requirement to weigh in because they were heavyweight fights but I will try and get something more concrete.

The 155.5 weigh in was unofficial on the morning of the Corbett fight. Official fight weights reported to be slightly dodgy.

Highly probable in fairness. Burley is reported as weighing in around the 160 mark - but those who knew him at the time and of course he himself said that he used to write the weight down without getting on the scales - as per his fight where he beat the HW. In fact - he was barely weighing over 150.
----------------------
As for who developed the jab Manos - Mendoza is widely reported as being the first great exponent of the art of jabbing and moving - and he died in 1836.

Besides - on ancient pottery and artwork - there appears a plethora of examples of people throwing what looks to be a pretty textbook jab - so I'm not sure he invented the idea so much as brought it back into fashion, nor is it clear how much of the art was taught to him by his mentor Humphries.

The idea that Corbett invented the jab to beat Sullivan, which has been suggested before in old timer debates, is, sadly false.

I think the weigh ins and reported weights of plenty of fights and fighters of this sort of era are highly dubious
Plenty of informed opinion suggests Greb weighed less than claimed for a few of his fights.
Weighing in with weights in his pockets etc .He was trying to land a Dempsey fight so being heavier apparently might help that cause
Ive got some other Jeffries pictures where he looks even bigger .Reportedly 220ish.Shows the class of Fitz in a backhanded sort of way

oxring wrote:The 155.5 weigh in was unofficial on the morning of the Corbett fight. Official fight weights reported to be slightly dodgy.

Highly probable in fairness. Burley is reported as weighing in around the 160 mark - but those who knew him at the time and of course he himself said that he used to write the weight down without getting on the scales - as per his fight where he beat the HW. In fact - he was barely weighing over 150.
----------------------
As for who developed the jab Manos - Mendoza is widely reported as being the first great exponent of the art of jabbing and moving - and he died in 1836.

Besides - on ancient pottery and artwork - there appears a plethora of examples of people throwing what looks to be a pretty textbook jab - so I'm not sure he invented the idea so much as brought it back into fashion, nor is it clear how much of the art was taught to him by his mentor Humphries.

The idea that Corbett invented the jab to beat Sullivan, which has been suggested before in old timer debates, is, sadly false.

Yeah and there was probably somebody before Mendoza who had worked it out aswell. The point is that it was not commonly utilised back in those days so its pretty reasonably to guess that nowadys the art of jabbing, and by extension the art of dealing with the jab, is much more advanced.

I dont know why you are challenging these points really. London Prize Rule, bareknuckle, last man standing etc all required a different skillset. It would be frankly astounding if boxers hailing from that era had mastered the styles that became prevalent in gloved era with Marquis rules and different scoring systems.

Yet because being called cruder is deemed some kind of insult there is an exhausting defence mounted for every minute facet of the game. They were cruder back then because thats what the sport called for. Without referees willing to break up clinches or prevent roughouse tactics the jab is nowhere near as useful weapon. Outside fighting wouldnt work. It was largely inneffective in bareknuckle stlye boxing with tiny rings and emphasis on grappling and body punching. As the rules of the sport evolved however it became a very effective tool and far more relevant. It didnt develop overnight. Its no coincidence in my view that even in the 1920s two great fighters like Greb and Dempsey who beat nearly every other challenger had huge problems with Tunney, who I see as taking a certain style to another level.

Someone like Fitzsimmons would have little experience dealing with a genuinely great jab or a top class elusive outside fighter that fought on the back foot. It just wasnt commonplace back then.

One name for you there Manos- Philadelphia Jack O'Brien.

What about him? He may have had an elusive style for those days but thats like saying Corbett had a great jab. Relative to the time, but not neccessarily compared to other era's.

Jack O'Brien could fight from the outside and Fitzsimmons dealt with him easily first time around is my point, each fighter has to be judged on their own individual merits rather than generalised based on the era they fought in.

I dont really agree because Im not convinced O'Brien was a top outside fighter relative to ones in later era's. And the original question was how Fitzsimmons fares against all the other top middleweights which is why I am bringing up other eras.

I view Fitzsimmons as a top fighter for the era he was in and the demands of that era. But the sport evolved and Im not convinced his style or strengths match up well with following era's. I think its being awfully generous saying he could match up technically with the likes of Hagler, Hopkins or Robinson for instance. I dont think theres a strong basis for that. His power surely transcends any era but I dont know if his style or technical ability does in comparison to the other all time great middleweights of later eras. Especially the more technical ones.

rowley wrote:If time permits when I get home I will check and try and get something definitive but from what I remember the reports of weights often varies as there was no requirement to weigh in because they were heavyweight fights but I will try and get something more concrete.

Have now had time to research some of the fights Fitz had at heavy and as I alluded to it does not appear they were recorded formally. However this is a direct quote on the issue from The National Police Gazette regarding his fight with Jeffries when he lost the title.

"One thing which puzzled the sports was the respective weights of the men and while it was confidently believed that Fitz would fight in the neighbourhood of 170 pounds and Jeffries somewhere about 205 yet no one except the trainers knew what the weights really were. This was an item of interest which will probably never go on record, and all that will be known was that both men fought at their best weights"

With regard to the Corbett title winning effort Pollack again confirms there was no official weigh in so no official weights were published. There does appear to have been speculation across the press that putshim anywhere between 155 and 180 but speculation is all it was and will remain it would appear.

I wonder where the New York Times gets 167lb from for the Corbett fight. You would think if it wasnt confirmed they would just report it as such rather than submit an incorrect weight.

Seems odd Manos because reading Pollack while I post he says the referee announced Bob at 158 so you would think were the press to report anything that would seem to be the logical figure they would choose. Given the lack of a weigh in though is all largely academic because obviously we have no way of knowing Corbett's weight so like Pollack says in the book, the gap could be as little as 10 pounds or as high as 30 pounds.

My own view looking at pictures is that Fitz fighting at Heavy is way over 160 and the idea he fought Heavies like Jeffries at that weight is simply not believable
Look at Hearns at 152.Almost a skeleton and slightly smaller height wise than Fitz
Ruby Rob is a great fighter from a bygone age but not a 160 guy and no match for Greb,Robinson,Monzon ,Hagler ,Hopkins etc
Thought provoking piece though

I don't know Skidd most of the estimates for the Corbett fight put him around 165 and his trainer said the plan was to come in around 162 so it is possible he is not too much north of 160. The other thing to bear in mind is the likes of Corbett were only around 180 and even Jeffries who was considered a giant for the day was not too much north of 200 so is possible if Fitz is pictured with them at 160 he will look bigger because we naturally assume for heavies his opponent will be a behemoth, such is what we are used to with the heavies.

Hearns at 152lbs wasn't actually 152lbs he would have weighed considerably more than that in reality.

rowley wrote:I don't know Skidd most of the estimates for the Corbett fight put him around 165 and his trainer said the plan was to come in around 162 so it is possible he is not too much north of 160. The other thing to bear in mind is the likes of Corbett were only around 180 and even Jeffries who was considered a giant for the day was not too much north of 200 so is possible if Fitz is pictured with them at 160 he will look bigger because we naturally assume for heavies his opponent will be a behemoth, such is what we are used to with the heavies.

You could well be right and we have been conditioned on those big Heavies .I just struggle with Fitz as a 160 never mind 155
Jeffries is a monster at 205 and I wonder about the damage he could do today
A few of James Toneys protein shakes and he might worry Audley or get respect from Az!!!

Jeffries I do struggle believing was a mere 205lbs, he was absolutely huge without an ounce of fat on him and agree with Jeff that in thinking he's bigger it makes you think Fitzsimmons was also bigger but unlike Jeffries his spindly legs are where a lot of the weight is lost.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hearns at 152lbs wasn't actually 152lbs he would have weighed considerably more than that in reality.

Ghosty ..I know that but against Benitez and Leonard 1 he looked too thin for me .Hearns is 6'1" skinny and struggled for 152 early on.
Fitz is taller??(depends on your source) yet makes 155 160 ?He looks a good bit bigger so I dont buy that

Wait a second, where have you got the idea that Fitzsimmons was taller than Hearns from?

205 lbs is pretty heavy all the same. Look at the physique Holyfield had for instance and I think he was only something similar.

Is possible he was more. We know for a fact he was 150.5 for Dempsey and this was 1891. I did not realise it was a full 6 years between that fight and Corbett so for a guy of 6ft + heading into his 30s to only put a stone on in those six years does seem fanciful but it has to be said the consensus in the press rarely, if ever seems to peg him at above 170.

Yeah Fitzsimmons was almost 35 for the Corbett bout. Theres a good chance he was significantly heavier than his middleweight days. He would have no incentive to keep his weight down for a heavyweight fight either.

But knowing he would later win the 170lb title it's unlikely his weight was ever much over that limit if ever.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Wait a second, where have you got the idea that Fitzsimmons was taller than Hearns from?

From that picture.Now there are camera angles etc but he looks taller to me and Jeffries was 6'2". I did put the depends on your source though
Tommy is 6' 1" for sure and I know because I have met him

To confuse the issue even further according to the introduction to Pollack's book Bob was listed as between 5ft 11 and half or 5ft 11 and three quarters.

rowley wrote:To confuse the issue even further according to the introduction to Pollack's book Bob was listed as between 5ft 11 and half or 5ft 11 and three quarters.

Yes and thats why i said depends on the source
He is a tall 5'10" if thats the case. Which would make Jeffries an unbelievable 205 220 guy in that time
That makes me think he was a 6' 1" 6'2" guy

skidd1 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:205 lbs is pretty heavy all the same. Look at the physique Holyfield had for instance and I think he was only something similar.

That Holyfield physique is highly questionable
Since this is an adult discussion then Holy was on PED's .No doubt for me..Research Balco etc

How does that impact the point?

Holyfield looked like a monster yet he only weighed around the same as Jeffries. Whether he was on steroids or not doesnt really change how much he weighed.

Steroids and EPO change things massively Manos and I await your reply

Then again there's no proof that Holyfield has ever taken PED's so think we should steer clear of that.

Actually being proven of taking PED's rather than mere speculation.

Has he ever been proven by any governing body or commission? No he hasn't so until that happens all it is is speculation.

Sorry for not being foolish enough to believe everything I read.

skidd1 wrote:Steroids and EPO change things massively Manos and I await your reply

Taking roids increases your size. mussle mass and weight.

skidd1 wrote:Not trying to be insulting but a great sport that is cycling has been ruined by PEDs
That sport meant a lot to me as it was mine
Boxing was my other sport.Huge family interest and connection and now i see it going that way
Thats my call on it and Holly is as in it up to his neck

I dont think cycling has been ruined by it. Neither sprinting. I want to see athletes run and cycle faster and if they;re juicing, so what.

Boxing is different because you are hitting someone with the main purpose of rendering them uncoiscious. Athletes on roids aren't hurting anyone but themselves in thelong tun. Boxers on roids can kill and any boxer who juices on roids should be banned for life and probably charges with attempted manslaughter.

As a former cyclist myself Skidd do understand your feelings on the matter but unlike boxing it's a proven problem with many being found to be users the same with athletics, there are those i'm sceptical of but until they are proven to be PED users i'm going to keep schtum about it. The main reason I gave it up was not knowing even at the lower levels if the guys I was racing against were on something.

Az..a few guys I raced against are no longer here.Fit young people generally dont die pre 40 yet lots of professional cyclists do.
Roids and boxers is an obvious one but EPO is the boxing one as shane mosely admitted.
The main tool of choice I would guess now is HGH or EPO.Well artificial EPO or HGH.Still what do I know?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:As a former cyclist myself Skidd do understand your feelings on the matter but unlike boxing it's a proven problem with many being found to be users the same with athletics, there are those i'm sceptical of but until they are proven to be PED users i'm going to keep schtum about it. The main reason I gave it up was not knowing even at the lower levels if the guys I was racing against were on something.

I get that 100% and it was rife at lower levels

skidd1 wrote:Az..a few guys I raced against are no longer here.Fit young people generally dont die pre 40 yet lots of professional cyclists do.
Roids and boxers is an obvious one but EPO is the boxing one as shane mosely admitted.
The main tool of choice I would guess now is HGH or EPO.Well artificial EPO or HGH.Still what do I know?

I used to be involved in sprinting back in the day. Ran 10.79 pb and 14.20 in 110 hurdles as a junior. No world beater. Far from it. I trained with athletes who went on to win world champ medals (Tony Jarret, John Regis). They despaired when certain high profile athletes were winning gold and smashing records for fun. Obvious PED junkies. I recall a conversation I had with an athlete called Mel Lattany who said when a very famous (now gay) sprinter ran 9.95 and 19.75 in 100m and 200m respectively and jumped 28 feet in the long jump in one afterneen at a meet in Santa Monica, his pupils were so dilated you couldn't see his eyes properly. This was months before Ben Johnson got caught in Soeul. But my point is that these guys are harming themselves only. Boxing is very different as you are trying to hurt your opponent. Including PED to give you extra strength is very dangerous and should be severely punished.

Drugs cheats in cycling indirectly cause damage to others, seeing guys whom I at one stage had the beating of start to improve so drastically makes you push your body to the absolute limit just trying to find that little bit extra, my knees and back are royally screwed.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Drugs cheats in cycling indirectly cause damage to others, seeing guys whom I at one stage had the beating of start to improve so drastically makes you push your body to the absolute limit just trying to find that little bit extra, my knees and back are royally screwed.

Sorry I disagree. There is free will. You decided to push yourself harder due to your competitive spirit. Cant blame them for that.

Az..I get it..Flo Jo and Carl!!
I trained with the late Frankie Vandenbrouke .He was the punk cocky kid
Peds's are just wrong.Frankie was a very talented cyclist perhaps the best of his generation

Just like a boxer has a choice getting in the ring knowing the apparent dangers from the start.

skidd1 wrote:Az..I get it..Flo Jo and Carl!!
I trained with the late Frankie Vandenbrouke .He was the punk cocky kid
Peds's are just wrong.Frankie was a very talented cyclist perhaps the best of his generation

Not Flo Jo. You got the other one. And Ben got villified whereas Carl got let off in 1984 and 1988.

Flo Jo was a joke. Even her voice changes to become deeper.

Sorry dont follow cycling so have no idea who that bloke is.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just like a boxer has a choice getting in the ring knowing the apparent dangers from the start.

Absolutely. He makes that decision willingly. But he doesn;t make the decision for his opponent to juice. And if the juicer kills him...what then. Which is more harmful?