Lennox Lewis vs Bob Fitzsimmons: Who is the GREATEST

[elmersalsa]

Two outstanding British and European great champions of all time.

Which one of the two was better in your opinion?

Lennox Lewis:
1. Three-time heavyweight champion of the world.
2. Retired undefeated champion
3. Avenged the 2 losses of his career.
4. the best hw of his time
5. Beat Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield
6. Beat 2 hall of famers and 10 world champions
7. Was British and European champion
8. Only British to win the heavy crown in the 20th century
9. Made 9 successful title defenses in his second reign

Bob Fitzsimmons:
1. Three-division weight champion...The first in history.
2. First and only undisputed middleweight world champion to become undisputed world heavyweight champion
3. First non-American to win the world heavyweight crown
4. Fought in 4 decades (27 years as a pro)
5. Beat 3 world champions and 3 hall of famers, facing 7 of hall of famers.
6. 15 of his 48 nocauts were in the first round
7. Lost one fight in 10 years....A total of 54 fights in that span.

[elmersalsa]

I am sorry folks, I meant to say for Lennox Lewis as the first British to win the heavy crown in the 20th century...My mistake.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Two outstanding British and European great champions of all time.

Which one of the two was better in your opinion?

Lennox Lewis:
1. Three-time heavyweight champion of the world.
2. Retired undefeated champion
3. Avenged the 2 losses of his career.
4. the best hw of his time
5. Beat Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield
6. Beat 2 hall of famers and 10 world champions
7. Was British and European champion
8. Only British to win the heavy crown in the 20th century
9. Made 9 successful title defenses in his second reign

Bob Fitzsimmons:
1. Three-division weight champion...The first in history.
2. First and only undisputed middleweight world champion to become undisputed world heavyweight champion
3. First non-American to win the world heavyweight crown
4. Fought in 4 decades (27 years as a pro)
5. Beat 3 world champions and 3 hall of famers, facing 7 of hall of famers.
6. 15 of his 48 nocauts were in the first round
7. Lost one fight in 10 years....A total of 54 fights in that span.

The only three-time champion in Heavyweight history is Muhammad Ali. Lewis was a belt-holder in the early 90's --- the champ was still Riddick Bowe-Evander Holyfield (depending on the time) between 1992-1994. Lewis is one of only five two-time champs, however.

In terms of accomplishments, I don't think you can go past Fitzsimmons, but in a head-to-head contest, I would certainly favour Lewis. Looks like this is about accolades, though, & so Fitzsimmons wins.

[HomicideHenry]

No Contest: "Ruby Red" Bob Fitzsimmons is the ATG British/European champion in this show down between the best of yester-year and the modern era; who can you name in the last 25-30 years who comes close to the accomplishments of Bob Fitzsimmons weighing no more than 167 pounds and knocking out 200+ pound men in what would be catch-weight fights these days? Nobody.

Lewis, for all intents and purposes I have as the #2 Heavyweight of the 1990's right behind Evander Holyfield, and I would say he is THE best big man Heavyweight that ever lived, but besides those two accomplishments, I just think he lacks the numbers and high caliber opponents that Bob Fitzsimmons had.

No question, its Fitz for me.

[Sweet P]

Fitzsimmons has a better record and legacy but id pick Lewis if they met in there prime over 12 rounds.

[Flump]

Same as everybody else, Fitzsimmonds has the greater legacy but would have been flattened by Lewis, genetics.

[HomicideHenry]

Genetics my ass. If everything was based solely on genetics, then Dempsey never would have beaten Willard, Baer never would have beaten Carnera, and so on and so forth. What would hurt Fitzsimmons would be the vast difference in the rules and equipment; the 12 round system with 10 ounce gloves would have been a mere sparring session for the men of the early 20th century, but I don't know if Fitz could adapt so quickly for one fight only and succeed at it.

It would be like telling a highschool sprinter that he had to train for the Olympics. Fitz was from a time when body shots were the most common of assaults, and the punches were less than today, where the volume of punches are on average 50-75 a round. I dont know if you all grasp what I am talking about here, but hypothetically speaking, if you take a guy from one era which was completely different than another, put them in the ring together, the fight might not flow well because one man's used to one thing and not the other.

[Ambling Alp]

If the question is who is the better fighter and who had the more impressive career, then it's Fitzsimmons. His career includes middleweight and he didn't weigh more than a lightheavyweight himself.

However, if you are asking who was the better heavyweight, then clearly it's Lewis.

[dr_devious]

Pound for pound Fitzsimmons, but as a heavyweight Lennox Lewis.

[HomicideHenry]

I don't know. It can be debated upon as to whether or not Lewis was the greater heavyweight or not. Let's go down the line here, Fitzsimmons fought the likes of Jim Corbett, Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson, and numerous other all-star heavies, not including several all-star middleweights and light heavies as well. Lewis fought Holyfield and Tyson, who are virtually the only hall of famers he fought in his entire career.

If we're to judge, let's really be technical here, Fitz fought the more HOF fighters and generally overall a higher level of opposition than what Lewis did, over a longer period of time than Lewis done.

[dr_devious]

Of the 3 great heavies you mention, Fitz only beat Corbett, and lost to Jeffries and Johnson. Meanwhile, Lewis beat both Tyson and Holyfield, and beat Bowe in the olympics. In the heavyweight division, Lewis's record is better than Fitz's.
Size does matter as well. I dont think Fitz could replicate what he achieved in the last 40-50 years of 15 stone + heavyweights.

[HomicideHenry]

Yes, this be true, but had alot of those fights happened today; Fitz would have won on TKO's over Jim Jeffries, which would have been two HOF victories for him, like Lewis. The Johnson fight, I reckon can also work both ways considering Fitz was damn near 50 and had an arm injury to begin with going in against Johnson.

As for the size does matter, its speculative. Look at Fitz record, and notice that one of his opponents was even bigger than the Klitschko's, standing 6'7" and weighing in at 320 pounds. Fitz knocked that man out inside of three rounds. Again, speculative.

[Robinson]

Homicide

I like your posts but I can not help to disagree with you on a few things.

You mention that in Ruby Bob's era they through 50-75 blows a round....where do you get this from ? In all the footage I have dug up he or his peers were not THAT active, least of all over long sustained periods. Clinching and 'wrestling tactics' seemed to be a very common thing in that era.

Body punching differs from fighter to fighter I suppose. I think these days (possibly due to hight groin protectors and bigger-fatter gloves) that guys seem to throw less to the body. Dropping Corbett with a 'solar plexus' punch does not make one the authority on body punching. I am certain that after that fight more attention was placed on body punches, however.

I think genetics does make a difference and I see this daily. There are lots of people who are physically gifted that have tremendous athletic ability straight of the bat, they do minimal training and get maximum results.

Chances are that in 50-150 years alot of men in Lewis era will be HOFamers as well. History can often be viewed with rose coloured glasses that filter out a mans faults. And to say that distant past HOF were not without fault is a tad daft.

Ok...sure Fitz beat a monster of a man...but so what. I have beaten a guy that was 6'5, 363lbs...so what. If they guy has no good training and is not well schooled in fighting then it really means nothing. Size combined with ability and athleticism is what makes a foe hard.

A Jess Willard in paper proportions may be the same as a Lennox Lewis...but are they the same fighters or athltically ?

In any case I am not trying to be beligerent just standing on a different posture to that of your own.

Take care
Kym

[elmersalsa]

In my opinion, Lennox Lewis is not a top 10 heavyweight...Neither a top 100 greatest pound per pound fighter.

Bob Fitzsimmons was a freak of nature. He is probably a top 20, 30, 40 or 50 great, pound per pound fighter of all-time.

[granberry]

Fitz could punch and Lewis had a glass chin.

BAD combination for the glass-chinned one.

[granberry]

Dropping Corbett with a 'solar plexus' punch does not make one the authority on body punching. . . .

That's a winner.

[BoxBuzz]

Wouldn't the size discrepancy be a bit of a problem gran? When the times are factored in I give Fitz the edge. But mono en mono? I'd bet on Lewis I think due to huge size discrepancy. Is there any example of a VERY GOOD small man beating a VERY GOOD big man? I know there were big guys back then but were those opponents as good as a Riddick Bowe or a Lennox Lewis?

I'm actually asking for your best input. Many of us (me included at times) give so much credit to a fighter for just BEING and LIVING at a certain time...as if that gave them an edge somehow. And in terms of distractions that is a very valid point. Back then training could be considered entertainment. Would Fitz overcome the size difference and really be competitive with what Foreman would call these "Big Mack Heavyweights"?

[Robinson]

I just think Lewis is too big and SKILLED.

Mr Gran,
I am ignorant to this era obviously...what other instances of hard consitent
body punches has Fitz got on his record ?

I have seen the clip several times of him defeating Corbett and I know that many
here feel that boxing skills, talent and athleticism in the last 50 years has dropped
off considerably compared to the near perfect pugs of yesteryear.

Do you have any clips I could perhaps view to help educate me ?

Thanks again

[Robinson]

I can see on YouTube
Fitz Vs Jeffries
Fitz Vs Corbett
Fitz Vs Lang

Sadly I have not seen any more

[dempseyfire]

I concur with most, Fitz by far the better boxer overall, but head to head Lewis would win. Not just because Fitz was smaller, but that he was MUCH MUCH smaller. In top shape about 165 lbs. His winning of the HW title was testament to his greatness as a fighter, but I think Lewis over 12 rounds has enough in the tool-chest to outpoint Fitz or knock him out early.

It also depends on eras.Lewis for example, wore his cup up to his friggin' belly-button vs Holyfield, ensuring that Evander couldn't even employ body shots in their fight. If teleported to 1900, over 20 rounds, wearing basically a loin cloth, in the summer sun, I don't think it's a completly ridiculous notion to think Fitz could use his speed, feinting, and defense to possibly avoid Lewis's power in the early going and then wear the often stamina challenged big man out over the long haul. BUT, in this instance, I think Lewis prevails.

Lennox does NOT prevail over 15 vs the likes of Jefferies, Johnson, or Dempsey.

[Robinson]

DF

You dont think that over 20 rounds in that sun should the fight even go that far after Fitz ate some solid 250lb punches....that Lewis' hand behind the head dragging Fitz down...putting his weight on him would not tire or wear Fitz down.

Beating a talented big man is always a great feat, but at the same time, 190lb Corbett is not a 250lb Lewis. I know I have read here and by other 'historians' that Corbett is the best boxer ever to lace gloves up.

[Robinson]

What makes you think the fight will even go 15 rounds ?

[dempseyfire]

DF

You dont think that over 20 rounds in that sun should the fight even go that far after Fitz ate some solid 250lb punches....that Lewis' hand behind the head dragging Fitz down...putting his weight on him would not tire or wear Fitz down.

Beating a talented big man is always a great feat, but at the same time, 190lb Corbett is not a 250lb Lewis. I know I have read here and by other 'historians' that Corbett is the best boxer ever to lace gloves up.

Yes, 90 lbs is a lot to overcome in the clinch, which is partly why I think Lennox wins. Fitz was not a small Heavyweight . . he was a true middleweight. Some great middleweights can beat HWs, but not the best of the best. I see the 240 lb Lewis beating the 165 lb Fitz, just like I see the 186 lb Marciano beating the 160 lb Carlos Monzon.

[granberry]

I can see on YouTube
Fitz Vs Jeffries
Fitz Vs Corbett
Fitz Vs Lang

Sadly I have not seen any more

If you think you are seeing Fitzsimmons vs. Jeffries on YOUTUBE, you are beyond help.

In the YOUTUBE farce Fitz is taller than Jeffries, Fitz has a belly

and both 'fighters' are SOUTHPAWS.

LOL

[HINT----Don't believe everything you see on YOUTUBE]

[Robinson]

Ok...well do you have a copy or have you seen the proper version of that fight ?

Like I said I can only go by what I see. And I am less inclined to believe what some
historians paint about classic fighters. I mean I am not the biggest fan of say a
Bert Sugar.

Tell me more about Fitz please ?