were they really world champions?

Forgive my ignorance but were the world champions of, I don't know, 1900(?) Really world champions.

I noticed Fitzsimons is ranked really high in ATGP4P lists so read about him on wiki.

Born in the UK, moved to New Zealand lost 5 out of 6 fights, moved to Australia had a mixed record, then moved to America and won the world title at three weights.

Was he really world champion, or was he just the champion of America (and of the people who could afford to go there?). Was there not in reality people in NZ, Oz and elsewhere who would still beat him? Granted he improved when going to the U.S, but
America takes liberties with the use of the word World, for instance the World Series in baseball.

Was he, and many others of the era, really WORLD Champions?

Good question,and one I can't answer, but I have questioned a few posters on here regarding how they rate the real old timers when in reality most us know so little about the era that they operated in- ie how big was the field of competition?, how many boxers were there? Were boxers in places like Africa considered- travel opportunities were certainly more limited. Looking forward to the responses of those that know more about this, and those that rate Bob as a top ten ATG, without ever being able to watch his fights and those of many of his opponents.

The only man he lost to before moving to America was Jim Hall, a guy he would later beat in America. If you were good enough you could earn enough money to go to America so despite it being very Americacentric, the best in the world all fought there.

Hammer,

On wiki it says he lost 5 of 6 fights in NZ, and had 28 proor fights in Oz before moving to America. It doesn't say what his record was in Oz but definitely mentions a loss to Dooley and a fight he won by default when he was knocked on his back, and won from that position after his oponent broke his hand.

Overlooked the Dooley fight I must say, far too early in his career to be significant but wikipedia sometimes struggles to differentiate between an official loss and the opinion of a newspaper.

Aside from that Fitzsimmons was without doubt the best middleweight in the world and beat the best in the world until the emergence of Jeffries. Anybody who was anybody fought in America or Brtiain, it's the way it was and the way it continued to be for a long time. Even now the best American fighters stay in America.

Fitzsimmons wasn't very popular as Heavyweight champion 3fingers........

Wanted the belt but didn't want to fight......

Took Jeffries two years to get him in the ring........The tabloids of the time questioned his manhood regularly.........

Loved to have seen a Corbett rematch......Often forgotten that Corbett was outboxing him before the slats .........

A fight that is on youtube.. 3fingers.... and one you should watch as it's the first ever film of a heavy title fight...

Whatever you say about his reluctance to defend..........A definite top hall of famer and great great fighter..

rumor has it he was close to defeating Jeffries in the rematch when he got caught...

Sadly no film of these fights..

Should also be added there are a lot of rumours the Hall figth in Oz was not on the level and Fitz had to take a dive just to guarantee future engagements. When Fitz had matured a bit and the fight was definitely on the level in the States a better impression of their relative merits can be gained.

Fitz for me is absolutely a world champion. Going right back to the days of Tom Molyneux great fighters travelled the world to seek out the best and as it has been pretty much ever since at the time of Fitzsimmons America was the epicentre of the fight game. In competing and winning their Fitz established himself as the real deal.

A decent indication as to the strength in the rest of the world can be seen a few years later when Johnson was champion. As a result of Johnson's refusal to face them the likes of McVea, Jennette and Langford had to travel the world to fight, popping up in Australia, Paris and London fairly regularly. When they did this they tended to beat the local competition with such ease that promoters tended to bring two or three of the fighters over just to ensure something approaching competitive fights.

The only title of Fitz' that can be questioned is his light heavyweight title. He won it fair and square but as a newly introduced division it took a while to gain acceptance. However his middle and heavyweight titles are 100% legit, and both won off very decent fighters as well.

Great read rowley cheers.

Two quick questions.....

1) Does anyone know who the first universally recognised world champion was who could not speak English?

2) Who was the first universally recognised based outside America?

3) Did non-english speaking countries have their own versions of world champions?
2)

Ok that was three questions

1. Pancho Villa or Eugene Criqui I would guess

2. The early days of the bantamweight and featherweight divisions are tricky, there were world titles based in the UK. Could argue it was Billy Plimmer depending what side of the fence you sit on.

3. No idea but I wouldn't have thought so, certainly nothing that has been taken too seriously.

Does anyone have an idea of the numbers that participated in the sport back then compared to the heyday of the 1950s?
I ask as surely impacts on how highly the title can be regarded- for example at the peak of it's popularity the schools ABA championship attracted over 40,000 entrants by the 1990s there were barely 4000 junior amateurs in the whole of the uk, which somewhat dilutes the achievement of wining such a tournament. How does the pro game compare over the gloved era - when were there the highest numbers of pro fighters? And does this affect the ATG ratings?