Bob Fitzsimmons v Harry Greb

[Boilermaker]

Here's about 9 minutes footage of Greb. No fight footage I'm afraid but still better than a kick in the goolies

http://www.archive.org/details/HarryGrebNewsreel

Excellent post.

What do you guys think about the Greb vs Philadelphia Jack O brien footage.

I was surprised how much bigger Philadelphia Jack O brien looked to be honest. I know that it was only a light sparring session by the looks, but i think it was really really interesting.

For the topic of the current situation, it is interesting that Jack did appear to land quite cleanly in one small exchange in the clinch. Harry might be in a little trouble if Fitz did the same?

Yes, Phil Jack O'Brien was about 180 pounds in 1925.He fought at about 173-05 pounds as a LH champ about 20 years before this training clip with Greb. Greb in 1925 was at 160 lbs, MUCH smaller than O.Brien...
To think that Phil. Jack O'Brien fought 3 of the greatest MWs ever in Fitz, Ketchel, and sparring with the unorthodox Pittsburgh Windmill. Some resume,I would think...

Yeah excellent resume. Actually, it is an awful lot deeper than that also. You can add the following to the list:
Jack Johnson, Tommy Burns, Joe Choynski, Peter Maher, Marvin Hart, Tommy Ryan, Young Peter Jackson, Sam Langford, Barbados Joe Walcott and Jack Blackburn. And that is without considering bouts with very good contenders like Kaufman, Fireman Jim Flynn, Shrek, Kelly, Twin Sullivan, Dixie Kid, Byers, Jeffords and Cole. So far as sparring/exhibitions go, I dare say that Dempsey/Greb and Johnson is just the tip of the iceberg. Still a pretty impressive trio right there though.

He was pretty succesful against mostof these guys too. IT is often forgotten that it was the Jack O Brien vs Tommy Burns fight that actually unified the world championship in many eyes, so for a while, he was considered the world champion by many people. From memory, he did also fight quite a few middleweight bouts in those early days. Though to be balanced, he does seem to have been outclassed by a few of these guys. Definitely a better fighter than most remember though. In fact O brien vs Greb would be a hell of a lot closer than people think, especially given the size advantage. Like probably everyone here, i would pick Greb, but at the right odds, i would have a stab on Jack. He is a live underdog. By the way here is a link to Jack o Brien's fighting manual.

http://www.archive.org/stream/BoxingByP ... 9/mode/2up

[Tomasino]

I've got that manual saved into my phone. I read it years ago and think it is excellent. Its clear he knew every trick in the book. He seemed to train fighters in retirement but I've never read anyone saying how good or bad as a trainer he was. Philly Jack claims his fight with Fitzsimmons was a "fake". He was considered by respected observers of the time to be one of the greatest.

Its hard to really get an idea about these real old time fighters as so much chicanery went on in prizefighting back then, from refs betting on outcomes and stopping fights blatantly and bizarre agreements like if you don't win by kò the decision goes against you. I don't doubt there were great fighters and great fights but a great deal of boxing back then has a whiff about it. Greb was in so many confirmed wars and beat so many greats who were also fighting very regularly in tough matches, like Tunney, Gibbons brothers etc etc that its IMO impossible to put his record up against Fitzsimmons and not be more impressed by Harry.


However I really couldn't pick between them in a fight. Even if Harry beat the hell out of him every round and blocked or slipped almost every punch I imagine if Fitz lands right on a fellow 160lb fighter its over. I don't see Fitz ever outboxing or outpunching Harry Greb but he might break him in half with a body shot or knock him out late on. From what I have read anyone who seen or fought Bob Fitzsimmons came away with the conviction he was the hardest hitter they had ever seen.

[Boilermaker]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xo ... greb&hl=en

That is Mickey Walkers description of the Greb Walker street fight. Surely that one will coax Greb's biggest fans into this battle

[Ezzard]

Many people say the Greb-Walker story isn't true. Be great if it was true.

[King Carlos]

Certainly sounds like a tall tale the way he told it.

[Boilermaker]

Certainly sounds like a tall tale the way he told it.

If i recall correctly, Klompton (and i am pretty sure quite a few others) has some pretty strong evidence that Greb was placed in a different location at this time. But i wouldnt mind hearing it again so i can look it into it, if anyone can post any info that helps dispel or prove the myth. For the record, if forced to make a guess, i would say that it didnt take place.

[beaujack]

Certainly sounds like a tall tale the way he told it.

If i recall correctly, Klompton (and i am pretty sure quite a few others) has some pretty strong evidence that Greb was placed in a different location at this time. But i wouldnt mind hearing it again so i can look it into it, if anyone can post any info that helps dispel or prove the myth. For the record, if forced to make a guess, i would say that it didnt take place.

Agreed ! Greb was with his manager after the bout, not in the nightclub Silver Slipper.

[Boilermaker]

Based on his career. Harry's resume dwarfs Bob's, not even arguable.

Really.

How do you figure this? Longevity? No, Dominance? No, Overall better fighters? No.

As good as Harry was, his resume doesnt compare. What is it that you see as Harry's strength in resume, that you like?

You said name Greb's 10 best Ws vs Fitz's 10 best . . gladly:

Greb:
Gene Tunney
Mike Gibbons
Tommy Gibbons
Micky Walker
Maxie Rosenbloom
Kid Norfolk
Battling Levinsky
Jack Dillon
Billy Miske
Jimmy Slatterly
Plus there are many great names if you kept going, like Jimmy Delaney, Jeff Smith, and George Chip

Now Fitz
Jim Corbett
Nonpar. Jack Dempsey (Fitz the much larger man)
Joe Choynski
Tom Sharkey
Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
George Gardner
Peter Maher
Gus Ruhlin . . then a steep drop-off
Jim Hall
Harris Martin

I'll take Greb's over Fitz's anyday of the week.

We have already compared Tunney to Corbett, with the conclusion that a win against Corbett is better than a lost series v Tunney.
Next we have Mike Gibbons v Jack Dempsey. I agree that Jack was the slightly smaller fighter (fitz was only small himself in those days) but the problem is again, that Greb did not win his series with Mike Gibbons, did he.

And Tommy Gibbons v Joe Choynski. Again, Greb did NOT wind the series, did he. So Greb's three biggest opponents drew with or beat Greb overall, while Fitz' three best opponents were all dominated and KOd by Fitz! How is it possible that Grebs best three opponents results compare to Fitz'?

[dempseyfire]

Really.

How do you figure this? Longevity? No, Dominance? No, Overall better fighters? No.

As good as Harry was, his resume doesnt compare. What is it that you see as Harry's strength in resume, that you like?

You said name Greb's 10 best Ws vs Fitz's 10 best . . gladly:

Greb:
Gene Tunney
Mike Gibbons
Tommy Gibbons
Micky Walker
Maxie Rosenbloom
Kid Norfolk
Battling Levinsky
Jack Dillon
Billy Miske
Jimmy Slatterly
Plus there are many great names if you kept going, like Jimmy Delaney, Jeff Smith, and George Chip

Now Fitz
Jim Corbett
Nonpar. Jack Dempsey (Fitz the much larger man)
Joe Choynski
Tom Sharkey
Philadelphia Jack O'Brian
George Gardner
Peter Maher
Gus Ruhlin . . then a steep drop-off
Jim Hall
Harris Martin

I'll take Greb's over Fitz's anyday of the week.

We have already compared Tunney to Corbett, with the conclusion that a win against Corbett is better than a lost series v Tunney.
Next we have Mike Gibbons v Jack Dempsey. I agree that Jack was the slightly smaller fighter (fitz was only small himself in those days) but the problem is again, that Greb did not win his series with Mike Gibbons, did he.

And Tommy Gibbons v Joe Choynski. Again, Greb did NOT wind the series, did he. So Greb's three biggest opponents drew with or beat Greb overall, while Fitz' three best opponents were all dominated and KOd by Fitz! How is it possible that Grebs best three opponents results compare to Fitz'?

No, we haven't concluded 1 come from behind W over Corbett is better than a 1-2-1 series vs Tunney, which in reality should've been 2-1-1 considering their rematch was regarded as a poor decision.

Then you discredit Greb for not winning his even "series" vs the Gibbons brothers, which is docking Greb points for fighting those great fighters numerous times. Fitz could've fought Corbett 3 more times and lost all 3. Ditto with Choynski. Fitz also didn't "win" his series with Jack O'Brian, did he?

[Boilermaker]

No, we haven't concluded 1 come from behind W over Corbett is better than a 1-2-1 series vs Tunney, which in reality should've been 2-1-1 considering their rematch was regarded as a poor decision.

I really dont understand how anyone can possibly conclude that a knockout victory is not better than a lost series, even if you might think that it is controversial.

Let us not forget that the Tunney who beat Greb was not the same fighter who beat Dempsey, he was a light heavyweight. Admittedly one of the very best ever but still a light heavyweight. And a light heavyweight who Greb admitted grew too large for him, as his weight approached heavyweight. Corbett was the World heavyweight champion, fighting as a heavyweight. And Fitz was a middleweight at 158lbs whereas Greb was the bigger fighter (than Fitz) fighting around the supermiddleweight limit of 168. Fitz' effort was the better effort on a pound for pound basis, even if Greb had asserted superiority, which he hadnt.

Then you discredit Greb for not winning his even "series" vs the Gibbons brothers, which is docking Greb points for fighting those great fighters numerous times. Fitz could've fought Corbett 3 more times and lost all 3. Ditto with Choynski.

Could have is the operative word. Could have but didnt. Anyone who wants to downgrade the career of Fitz has to resort to what they think might have happened. Or what they think of the quality of the era etc. The reality is that Fitz did fight Corbett and he did win. You cant denigrate his career because you dont think he could do it again. It is not as if Corbett was winning fights for years and demanding a rematch with results, is it? To be honest, there is far more chance of the Gibbons brothers winning the rubber match with Greb than there is of Fitz losing a rematch with Corbett. If nothing else, Greb's rubber match would likely go to the cards and that in itself can be controversial.

By the way, it is not that i am denigrating Greb for fighting the Gibbons brothers, more it seems that you are not giving credit to the abilities of the Non Pareil Jack Dempsey, who was a legend who dominated the middleweight scene more thoroughly and for a longer period of time than the Gibbons brothers could and Joe Choynski, who was every bit as good as teh Gibbons brothers, and who he like Tommy Gibbons was one of the best fighters in the world even though he was never more than a light heavyweight. Of Course, choynski has some pound for pound performances that even Greb cant compare with. Notably the KO of Johnson and the draw with Jeffries. In fact, he even argues a long count (from memory) against Fitz. He was a pound for pound great even better than the Gibbons brothers, good as they were.

Fitz also didn't "win" his series with Jack O'Brian, did he?

I havent got around to looking at the o brien series on this thread yet. I agree that the fight series was 1-1. Though Fitz was not exactly a spring chicken, and Jack was a great fighter himself. Pretty comparable with Greb's series with Tiger Flowers i would have thought, when you consider age and quality of fighter. Of course, Bob was more succesful than Greb, wasnt he?

[raylawpc]

If you think Fitz weighed 158 when he fought Corbett, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd love to sell you.

[dempseyfire]

I'll take the Gibbons brothers over Nonpar Dempsey anyday of the week. They thrived in a much deeper era, and were true middles/light heavies; not natural welters fighting in an era which weight classes were still evolving from the almost 'anything goes' huge 30-40 lb weight swings of the bareknuckle days.

I'm giving Greb credit for Ws, you are the one taking away credit from him for fighting those guys numerous times and losing a few. My point is, since Fitz didn't fight the likes of Corbett and others numerous times, we don't know whether he would've lost as much or more than Greb did. So docking Greb credit because of that is nonsensical.

Fitz weighed in at 167 vs Corbett, not 158. He was fighting large light heavies/small heavies as a super middle just like Greb did.

[Boilermaker]

Well Fitz weighed 155 1/2 when he beat Creedon in September 1894 in a middleweight title defence a couple of years earlier. Here is a pretty good read of their fight where Dan was the bigger man.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

here is a good article from March 1897 suggesting that Fitz would weigh in the low 160s.

Here is an interesting one to help Greb supporters a little not really that reliable but in 1903, (when not training properly it would seem) Fitz was claimed to weigh 200 lbs. It actually makes a pretty interesting thought when you consider todays superheavys. Is it unrealistic to think that Fitz frame might be capable of carrying 200lbs plus.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

This article is totally unrelated to weight, but very interesting to read the letter written by Jim Corbett taking a bit of aim at Wyatt Earp of OK coral fame.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

This one estimates Fitzsimmons weight at 165 lbs but it is an estimate only.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... weight----#

I havent really got the time to find the actual weights at the moment. In reality, it means nothing because they are reported differently by different fights. Some places report low 160s and even as high as 170s while others report 158 as the weight. Fitzsimmons himself says he weighed 158, which is as good a source as anywhere. Common sense suggests that Fitz weight would be overstated by the promoters because it would add to the crowd and give the impression of a closer fight, since most thought corbett would win quite easily. Eitehr way, we know Fitz weight the same or less than Greb against an opponent who was bigger than the Tunney Greb faced. It was also an opponent who was rated higher (both pound for pound and straight up) as a fighter than what Tunney was when he fought Greb (that has obviously changed a little due to advancements made with film). When Fitz fought Corbett, Corbett was the best fighter in the world bar noone. When Greb fought Tunney, Tunney would be lucky to be the third best, behind Dempsey and Wills. You can spin it whichever way you like, but a ko win against a bigger opponent, who is higher ranked, and at the same or lighter body weight than Greb is simply more impressive than closely losing a series of matches (and maybe even winning that series) against Tunney.

Fitz' win was the best win humanly possible at the time. Greb's was not. The Fitz Corbett Jeffries era (for what it is worth, and i dont think it is very much since all eras should be considered relatively equal because we dont really know which is stronger) was considered a golden age which was not really matched. Of those who saw both eras, most of these people considered the Fitz era to be the stronger of the two. Tunney was a massive win (even if it was a lossed series). And Greb's career stands surpasses most and is not outclassed by anyone. but it simply is not as good as Fitz' in virtually any respect.

[Boilermaker]

I'll take the Gibbons brothers over Nonpar Dempsey anyday of the week. They thrived in a much deeper era, and were true middles/light heavies; not natural welters fighting in an era which weight classes were still evolving from the almost 'anything goes' huge 30-40 lb weight swings of the bareknuckle days.

I'm giving Greb credit for Ws, you are the one taking away credit from him for fighting those guys numerous times and losing a few. My point is, since Fitz didn't fight the likes of Corbett and others numerous times, we don't know whether he would've lost as much or more than Greb did. So docking Greb credit because of that is nonsensical.

Fitz weighed in at 167 vs Corbett, not 158. He was fighting large light heavies/small heavies as a super middle just like Greb did.

Jack Dempsey was close to undefeated and considered the best middleweight in the world for 7 or more years. The only real blemish was due to le blanche (a great and bigger fighter himself) landing the pivot blow. His victories included McCaffery and Burke who were both good heavyweight contenders. He was considered an all time great middleweight. It is true that for most of this time he was more of a welterweight than a middleweight, but it is worth noting that seems to have weighed 155 to 160 when he fought the open weight fights.

The Gibbons brothers were great fighters. AT one stage, they may have even been the best in the world although they were never really recognised. They did fight more often than Dempsey and against good fighters too, but the flip side is that they lost quite a bit. Soldier Bartfield, Tommy Robson, among others for instance stands out as a fighter not in Dempsey's class who beat Mike Not to mention quite a few losses to very good top 10 type fighters or better but still, a loss is a loss.

Surely a legacy where you are considered the worlds best of your era (or top 2 or 3) has to have you rated higher than someone who is probably one of the 5 best fighters of their era, at best. It would be like rating Ken Norton ahead of Sonny Liston and Sonny Liston did lose to that all time great but realistically Listons dominance has to rate him better than NOrton.

Tommy Gibbons was a light heavyweight, and realistically more of a heavyweight. Head to head he was to big for the Non Pareil. But if you want to talk about divisions being devoid of talent, the Light heavyweight division was really a nothing division when Tommy campained there, though i suspect this has more to do with him never been considered the champ than anyone else. Tommy is a very good win, especially with him being heavier than Greb. Probably almost on par with Fitz' win over the greater light heavyweight and bigger hitting Joe Choynski.

And herein lies the difference. Fitz wins were all wins and all wins by KO. There was no controversy and there was no reason for a rematch. Greb's wins were close fights often losses and rematches were obviously more viable. Penalising Fitz because he was so dominant that he obliterated his opposition (even the great ones) really is silly, imo.

[raylawpc]

Well Fitz weighed 155 1/2 when he beat Creedon in September 1894 in a middleweight title defence a couple of years earlier. Here is a pretty good read of their fight where Dan was the bigger man.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

here is a good article from March 1897 suggesting that Fitz would weigh in the low 160s.

Here is an interesting one to help Greb supporters a little not really that reliable but in 1903, (when not training properly it would seem) Fitz was claimed to weigh 200 lbs. It actually makes a pretty interesting thought when you consider todays superheavys. Is it unrealistic to think that Fitz frame might be capable of carrying 200lbs plus.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

This article is totally unrelated to weight, but very interesting to read the letter written by Jim Corbett taking a bit of aim at Wyatt Earp of OK coral fame.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... tt+158----#

This one estimates Fitzsimmons weight at 165 lbs but it is an estimate only.

http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cdnc/cgi-bin/cdnc?a ... weight----#

I havent really got the time to find the actual weights at the moment. In reality, it means nothing because they are reported differently by different fights. Some places report low 160s and even as high as 170s while others report 158 as the weight. Fitzsimmons himself says he weighed 158, which is as good a source as anywhere. Common sense suggests that Fitz weight would be overstated by the promoters because it would add to the crowd and give the impression of a closer fight, since most thought corbett would win quite easily. Eitehr way, we know Fitz weight the same or less than Greb against an opponent who was bigger than the Tunney Greb faced. It was also an opponent who was rated higher (both pound for pound and straight up) as a fighter than what Tunney was when he fought Greb (that has obviously changed a little due to advancements made with film). When Fitz fought Corbett, Corbett was the best fighter in the world bar noone. When Greb fought Tunney, Tunney would be lucky to be the third best, behind Dempsey and Wills. You can spin it whichever way you like, but a ko win against a bigger opponent, who is higher ranked, and at the same or lighter body weight than Greb is simply more impressive than closely losing a series of matches (and maybe even winning that series) against Tunney.

Fitz' win was the best win humanly possible at the time. Greb's was not. The Fitz Corbett Jeffries era (for what it is worth, and i dont think it is very much since all eras should be considered relatively equal because we dont really know which is stronger) was considered a golden age which was not really matched. Of those who saw both eras, most of these people considered the Fitz era to be the stronger of the two. Tunney was a massive win (even if it was a lossed series). And Greb's career stands surpasses most and is not outclassed by anyone. but it simply is not as good as Fitz' in virtually any respect.

You aren't going to find any weights for Corbett-Fitz because there was no weigh-in. The 158 pound figure comes from Fitz. The same guy who told us he had 300 fights. (No evidence for that.) And that he kayoed Herbert Slade (The evidence doesn't support it).

[Boilermaker]

And where does the 168 come from? not exactly set in stone.

You are right about no weigh in. There were varying reports of weight at the time. NO one knows for sure, but no matter who you believe the facts are that Fitz was near the middleweight limit, a couple of pounds either way.

[Boilermaker]

Okay, it is time to move on to the 4th fighter.

So far, we have shown the idea that none of Fitz' opponents would make Grebs top 10 list is a joke.

At very worst, the top 3 were shown to be comparable. Although, there is no disputing that Fitz' victory over his top 3 were far more comprehensive than Greb's in that he wasnt beaten by any and knocked all of them out. As opposed to greb, who actually never won a series against his top 3 and had to rely entirely on decisions for his wins, sometimes close or controversial news decisions. I am not saying Grebs record isnt fantastic, because it is, but it doesnt beat Fitz. Still, Grebs strength is its depth. you would expect it to start to spread out, so on with the comparisons as provided.

Joe Choynski vs Mickey Walker.

I must say, this a great opponent for Greb. In fact, arguably better pound for pound than the Gibbons brothers and maybe even Tunney. Still, at the time he fought Greb (according to boxrec) he weight just barely over the middleweight limit, and Greb, on the other hand had an 8 pound weight advantage. Walker had his share of losses in this time (not that he wasnt still a very good fighter), and he did seem to get more succesful when he later bulked up to more of a light heavy, when he established himself as a legitimate contender, with wins over Uzcuden, Bearcat Wright and quite a few others including his draw with Sharkeuy, of course he couldnt take the final step in winning a crown and any hopes pretty much disappeared with his loss to Schmelling.

Choynski was very similar in size. He and Fitz were both pretty much middleweights when they fought, although i cant remember off hand which had the weight advantage (if any). Choynski's career was actually very similar to Walkers, in that he did most of his best work against the heavyier fighters. It is true that he was kod a bit, by the very best he fought in Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Goddard and one or two others, but it is also true that his best wins, Johnson, Maher, Godfrey, and the draw with Jeffries are a better quality of fighter than the heavys that Mickey Walker fought.

No matter which way you look at it, it is a very close call. I think that the Johnson and Jeffries results in particular has to tip it towards Choynski, plus consider that Greb did have the weight advantage in the Walker fight. There are arguments both ways with respect to the dominance of the win. Greb was pretty dominant in that he won decisively. Whereas Fitz did score the stoppage. But there was a little controversy in this, with the long count claim and stoppage by the police. In reality, both were decisive wins.

[Boilermaker]

And before i forget, here is footage of the two best names on each resume actually training and sparring with each other.

http://orphanfilmsymposium.blogspot.com ... chive.html

[dempseyfire]

I'll take the Gibbons brothers over Nonpar Dempsey anyday of the week. They thrived in a much deeper era, and were true middles/light heavies; not natural welters fighting in an era which weight classes were still evolving from the almost 'anything goes' huge 30-40 lb weight swings of the bareknuckle days.

I'm giving Greb credit for Ws, you are the one taking away credit from him for fighting those guys numerous times and losing a few. My point is, since Fitz didn't fight the likes of Corbett and others numerous times, we don't know whether he would've lost as much or more than Greb did. So docking Greb credit because of that is nonsensical.

Fitz weighed in at 167 vs Corbett, not 158. He was fighting large light heavies/small heavies as a super middle just like Greb did.

Surely a legacy where you are considered the worlds best of your era (or top 2 or 3) has to have you rated higher than someone who is probably one of the 5 best fighters of their era, at best. It would be like rating Ken Norton ahead of Sonny Liston and Sonny Liston did lose to that all time great but realistically Listons dominance has to rate him better than NOrton.

imo.

No, quality of comp is the key ingredient. Greb fought in a deeper era vs fighters who also thrived in a deeper era, and fought them many times. If relative dominance in an era went above everything else, Tommy Burns would be an all-time top 10 HW.

[Senya13]

You seem to dismiss a first hand eyewitness account (Fitz) very easily. I am not sure what you base this on (other than Adams very well written and researched book).

We've been at this at ESB and I think I've given quite enough arguments to prove Fitz's story more than doubtful. Fitz was known to be telling lies. He didn't win no lightweight title, there was no tournament per se, the exhibitions took place in 1882 (first visit of Mace to Timaru, per local newspaper writer), not in 1880 or 1881. Slade's brother did participate in those shows and Fitz must have met him, not Herbert.

[yancey]

Just a simple question....I know very little about either fighter. Have not read the thread.

Which one would be considered the cleaner fighter? (or maybe I should say less dirty )

[Goodnight, Irene]

Fitzsimmons.

[raylawpc]

Just a simple question....I know very little about either fighter. Have not read the thread.

Which one would be considered the cleaner fighter? (or maybe I should say less dirty )

I think it was Harry Greb that somebody said, "Harry will butt you, thumb you, hit you low . . . but he never bitches when you do it back to him." (Might have been Marciano . . .)

But I've never read of Fitzsimmons ever being accused of doing anything dirty.

[raylawpc]

You seem to dismiss a first hand eyewitness account (Fitz) very easily. I am not sure what you base this on (other than Adams very well written and researched book).

We've been at this at ESB and I think I've given quite enough arguments to prove Fitz's story more than doubtful. Fitz was known to be telling lies. He didn't win no lightweight title, there was no tournament per se, the exhibitions took place in 1882 (first visit of Mace to Timaru, per local newspaper writer), not in 1880 or 1881. Slade's brother did participate in those shows and Fitz must have met him, not Herbert.

[Boilermaker]

Just a simple question....I know very little about either fighter. Have not read the thread.

Which one would be considered the cleaner fighter? (or maybe I should say less dirty )

I think it was Harry Greb that somebody said, "Harry will butt you, thumb you, hit you low . . . but he never bitches when you do it back to him." (Might have been Marciano . . .)

But I've never read of Fitzsimmons ever being accused of doing anything dirty.

Those comments about Greb being dirty seem pretty far fetched. I would like to see someone try to substantiate these claims.

And Fitz was once said by some to have coated his wraps in plaster of paris against Jeffries. that is pretty dirty, if you ask me (not that there is much evidence of it).