Fritzie Zivic, he fought them all

[Ambling Alp II]

I am not talking about one or two losses. I am not including fights when he was old. I am not talking about losses to great fighters.
I am talking about dozens of fights to ordinary fighters when he was in his prime.
It happened. Not going to pretend it didn't happen.

[Datsue]

I am not talking about one or two losses. I am not including fights when he was old. I am not talking about losses to great fighters.
I am talking about dozens of fights to ordinary fighters when he was in his prime.
It happened. Not going to pretend it didn't happen.

That's fair enough. But Fritzie had like eleventy million fights.

Make a lot of dudes fight week in/week out, I don't think their records would look consistent either, mate. I know others did manage a similar level of activity & competition without suffering so many losses, & therefore if one is so inclined I'd not argue that they deserve to be ranked above him (if you're into ranking completely hypothetical things, natch. I'd like to think from the tone of my posts on this subject it will be easy to glean that I am not so fond).

I took great issue with your contention that there were 200 such fellas you could confidently put over him. Great issue.

&... Well, I loved Freddie Pendleton. I will never accept that he wouldn't have beaten the ever-living shite out of, say, Paul Spadafora. This is obviously 'cos I have eyes, but my eyes tell me that the dudes Zivic beat were baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad men. I feel the same way about someone telling me they "mark Zivic down" 'cos of all those losses as I would about someone who would justify Spaddy beating Freddie, "because of course Pendleton lost all those fights..."

[Ambling Alp II]

I am not just throwing the # 200 around. I have actually thought about this.
200 is not the huge number that you may think it is. There are tens of thousands of fighters who have fought.

Yes Zivic had a huge amount of fights. I am taking that into consideration. He still had way too many losses against ordinary competition.
I agree that there are many fighters who fought weak competition and piled up pretty win/loss records. Those guys I don't put ahead of Zivic.

I think if you are really going to be serious about rating fighters, you have to take a lot of factors into consideration and be consistent.

In a nutshell, here is what I do:
First, I look at a fighter's wins. I give them virtually no credit for beating tomato cans. The better the opponent, the more credit. I take into consideration the stage of the opponent's career, and to a lesser extent how competitive the fights were.
In this part, Zivic comes out great. He had some great wins and several nice ones as well.

Second I look at the losses/bad performances. The worse the opponent that you lose to, the more it hurts you. It's not the losses to Ray Robinson that hurts him. It is all the losses to journeyman that do.

Then I weigh the two against each other. Zivic (with the possible exception of Johnnie Risko) is the most extreme example of quality wins vs losses.

I use the same system on every fighter whether I like a particular fighter or can't stand them. Carlos Monzon and Jake LaMotta were despicable people, but I have them rated pretty highly.

[misterpunch]

theres a big hole in your rating system - zivic was the kind of guy - and he was not alone at the time he was fighting - that sometimes just didn't think it worth trying to win certain fights. a loss today is a major downer for a pro fighter who thinks he can get somewhere in this game. back in zivic's day it was not such a big deal. add in the corruption that was rife and your system starts to creak.

fritzie zivic is unclassifiable by your laudable but flawed system

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree that a single loss didn't hurt you nearly as much back them. Boxing was not so obsessed about promoting fights with undefeated (and often untested) fighters.
If it was just a few upset losses over a long career, it would not be a big deal. But we are talking about dozens. The real ATG's that had really busy and long careers simply don't have nearly that number of embarrassing losses.

Well, if he didn't care about trying in certain fights, thats up to him. I seriously doubt that was really the case. Athletes like him are naturally competitive and will give a good effort if they think it means the difference between winning and losing.
If you really buy into that argument, how can we give him credit for all of his wins? How do know that his opponents that he beat cared and were trying?
When he was losing 8 fights in a row, I don't find it plausible that he didn't care whether he won or lost them.

Not sure what you are getting at when about corruption. If you think he threw fights, then that's just too bad. I have no sympathy for that. If you think refs, judges etc were against him, I think it's doubtful. And again if you really buy into that argument, than we can't give him credit for all of his wins because if corruption was that rampant, some of his wins were probably tainted.

[Ezzard]

Who rates higher Aaron Pryor or Fritzie Zivic?

[Ambling Alp II]

Aaron Pryor. Good pick for you, knowing how many Pryor haters there are on this Forum. Still waiting to get your answers to my questions?
Where you rate Johnnie Risko? Is he a top 10 all-time heavyweight? One of the top 100 fighters of all time?
Is Zivic in your t op 10? Do you rate Zivic higher than Pep and Duran?

[Ezzard]

Seems like a strange answer to me.

I didn't think your questions were serious. But who knows...

[misterpunch]

I think you ought to consider my points a little closer - zivic was a very very good fighter with a knowledge of his craft that ranks as good as anyone who ever fought - archie moore, burley, benny leonard - he is up there with those guys. so do you think those losses you mentioned (plenty of them) were when he was really trying? I've read plenty about fritzie zivic and he wasn't the type to go out to win every fight like Armstrong or tribuani or tony zale did. he was more pragmatic and looked at boxing from the angle of earning money over a longer period of time. if he'd tried hard in every bout he would soon have to quit. you don't know what I'm talking about re the corruption? in the thirties and forties? well, what can I say? it wasn't all big events and headline fights - the boxing culture in those days was radically different to today.

I reiterate my point; your system cannot evaluate fighters like fritzie zivic - or lew Jenkins or bummy davis or many others for that matter

(but its a good discussion)

[Ambling Alp II]

I think you can. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Ambling Alp II]

Seems like a strange answer to me.

I didn't think your questions were serious. But who knows...

I was dead serious about my questions and I think you know why. You still didn't answer them; still waiting...

[Ezzard]

The idea that because Fritzie was a great that Risko must be too is so far removed from anything I can give credence to...I simply can't respond on it. Everyone knows the answer.

I'm not even saying Risko wasn't great. I just don't know much about him... But I know the logic is pedantic.

There is no golden key to unlock who was the greatest. No divine code.

[Ezzard]

Here’s what I do know. Olympic gold medalists and feted amateurs are managed, looked after, supported and invested in. They have advisers, nutritionists, conditioning coaches…

They don’t get life threatening pneumonia as a ranked professional. They don’t work in steel mills while training for fights. They don’t fight an average of once a month in their primes, often carrying injuries.

Worth factoring in to your system…

[Datsue]

The idea that because Fritzie was a great that Risko must be too is so far removed from anything I can give credence to...I simply can't respond on it. Everyone knows the answer.

I'm not even saying Risko wasn't great. I just don't know much about him... But I know the logic is pedantic.

There is no golden key to unlock who was the greatest. No divine code.

& I only got a bit lairy in my original response to him 'cos I suspected from his original postings in this manner that some semi-autistic Rain Man shite was responsible for his bizarre contention & it would be pointless trying to carry on a conversation with him like a normal person.

Fool that I am, I felt bad for jumping to this conclusion & either humoured him or became suckered into his web of crazy, depending on your viewpoint.

[Ambling Alp II]

The idea that because Fritzie was a great that Risko must be too is so far removed from anything I can give credence to...I simply can't respond on it. Everyone knows the answer.

I'm not even saying Risko wasn't great. I just don't know much about him... But I know the logic is pedantic.

There is no golden key to unlock who was the greatest. No divine code.

You are ducking the issue. Risko had better wins in his career than almost any other heavyweight. He beat Baer, Sharkey, Schaaf, Uzcudun, (2x), Loughran (2x). Yet nobody considers him up with the greats. Why because he had so many losses.

You didn't respond to whether Zivic was better than Pep and Duran. If losses don't count, he would have to rate higher because his wins are far more impressive. But of course you don't think he was and neither do I and hopefully no one else.
So why does everyone have Pep and Duran well ahead of Zivic? Because everyone (yourself included) are at least to some degree are counting losses. Pep and Duran were obviously much more consistent and didn't have dozens of losses in their prime.
We all conisder losses all time. Are you telling me some highly rated fighter right now would lose to some journeyman that you iopinion of him doesn't drop at all?
When Tyson lost to Douglas, Tyson's stock didn't drop at all?

I'm not saying I have a magic key that decides where everyone should be ranked. Never said anything like that.
I am just using common sense that you have to consider losses as well as wins. (Of course taking into consideration how many losses, stages of fighters careers, how competitive the fights were etc.)
That's all I am saying. Can't for the life of me understand why you would argue this.

[Ezzard]

I’d say putting Zivic in the same bracket as Duran makes far more sense than having him outside of the top 200.

If Aaron Pryor or Felix Trinidad or whoever fought the same fighters in the same time span under the same conditions as Zivic they’d have many, many more defeats.

In one 12 month span he beat Armstrong twice, Bummy Davis twice, Sammy Angott, Mike Kaplan and got a draw with Lew Jenkins. That’s a guy who doesn’t belong in the top 200…

When he lost the final fight with Burley he’d been the 10 round distance just 6 days previous. Imagine Tommy Hearns going 10 rounds in the same week he was due to fight Ray Leonard?

At least you’ve dropped your system…or the idea of it…

[Datsue]

I’d say putting Zivic in the same bracket as Duran makes far more sense than having him outside of the top 200.

If Aaron Pryor or Felix Trinidad or whoever fought the same fighters in the same time span under the same conditions as Zivic they’d have many, many more defeats.

In one 12 month span he beat Armstrong twice, Bummy Davis twice, Sammy Angott, Mike Kaplan and got a draw with Lew Jenkins. That’s a guy who doesn’t belong in the top 200…

When he lost the final fight with Burley he’d been the 10 round distance just 6 days previous. Imagine Tommy Hearns going 10 rounds in the same week he was due to fight Ray Leonard?

At least you’ve dropped your system…or the idea of it…

Your commitment to the incremental betterment of the human race astounds & humbles me.

[Ezzard]

You're much too kind, good friend.

[elmersalsa]

Fritzie Zivic was a very good fighter. Could have make the top 100, in my view, if he did not had that too many losses. Sixty-five losses? That is a lot of losses. But he had lots of wins, too.

Ranking 100 great fighters of all time, to me, was very hard. It was easier for me to rank 50.

Other things I put in consideration was championship bouts. How long did he stayed at the top fighting top men.

But then again, I put in consideration at fighters that never won a world title, but were great: Sam Langford, Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Packey McFarland, the great black heavyweight named Peter Jackson, that did not get a title shot from the great John L. Sullivan, etc.

Sam Langford never won a world title, but to me, he is one of the top 3 greatest fighters pound per pound, ever. Just look at his resume.

If the great Ezzard Charles would have been denied for a title shot in all weight classes, would he in my view be a top 10 all time great? Maybe yes, maybe not. It is really very hard ranking fighters. Not all lists are the same.

Quality wins is IMPORTANT, but I just do not solemnly rank a fighter just because of quality wins. How about the fighter's longevity? How about his unbeaten streaks? How did he perform in big fights that people wanted to see? How well did he do after turning 30 years old? How well did he do after he was no longer in his prime? How well did he do in his prime years? Did he challenged BIGGER MEN, or just stay stuck in his own weight class?

For heavyweights, I cannot use some of the parameters above. All I could rate them by quality wins, how good he was as champion, longevity, but cannot rate them if they fought BIGGER MEN because HWs is the limit. A heavyweight could get stuck in his own class. He cannot go down and fight lightheavys or middleweights.

So by judging Zivic:
How good was he at his very own weight class? Is he a top 20 of his weight class all time?
Did he fought the very best of his era? yes
Did he beat some of the very best of his era? yes
Did he lose to some mediocre fighters often? He did...But, were those losses important?
Was he a long reigning champion and had many world title defenses? No.
Did he cleaned up his weight class?
Did he had a great run of wins?
Did he beat BIGGER MEN?
How well did he do after turning 30?
How well did he do after he was not in his prime?
Did he had a long career? Yes
Did he had lots of pro fights? Yes

Is he a top 100 great? It depends of everyone's criteria. He is not in my top 100. But definitely, a borderline top 100 in my view.

[elmersalsa]

Fritzie Zivic won 158 bouts. That is a lot of wins in boxing.

[Controversial]

Ranking the old time fighters is very difficult. Especially in the 1930-50s as losses were common place, so was corruption and the good black fighters were often avoided.

How about arguably the greatest fighter in history, Sugar Ray Robinson vs. Tiger Jones in January 1955. Sugar Ray had a 132-3-2 record. Jones had a 32-13-3 record. Jones retired with a 52-32-5 record (58% win rate).

The result a landslide unanimous points win for Jones over 10 rounds, judges scorecards of 99-94, 100-88 and 98-89.

The Associated Press reported: "The former welterweight and middleweight titleholder...who started his comeback after 30 months as a song-and-dance entertainer by kayoing Joe Rindone two weeks ago, was handed the worst beating of his career by Jones....Time and again, Tiger drove Robinson into the ropes and mauled him pitifully."

Five fights later SRR regained the middleweight title and Jones won just 19 of his next 41 fights.

On paper his record looks bad but he was a very tough fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

I’d say putting Zivic in the same bracket as Duran makes far more sense than having him outside of the top 200.

If Aaron Pryor or Felix Trinidad or whoever fought the same fighters in the same time span under the same conditions as Zivic they’d have many, many more defeats.

In one 12 month span he beat Armstrong twice, Bummy Davis twice, Sammy Angott, Mike Kaplan and got a draw with Lew Jenkins. That’s a guy who doesn’t belong in the top 200…

When he lost the final fight with Burley he’d been the 10 round distance just 6 days previous. Imagine Tommy Hearns going 10 rounds in the same week he was due to fight Ray Leonard?

At least you’ve dropped your system…or the idea of it…

All great achievements. And he also lost dozens of fights to people that mediocre fighters
I don't think Trinidad or Pryor would have lost nearly as many fights under the same circumstances.

In one eight fight stretch, he lost to Joey Ferrando, then he lost to Tony Herrera, then he lost to George Salvadore, then he lost to Billy Celebron, then he lost to Eddie Cool, then to Ferrando again, then Chuck Woods, then to Gene Buffalo. 0-8 against these legends, 5 of them not in the top 10.
Do you seriously think Trinidad or Pryor would have lost all 8 of these fights? If you do, that makes one of us?

Trinidad and Pryor may have won less against great opponents in Zivics day, , but would have lost much less to mediocre fighters. They would have lost much more than did in their actual careers, but less than Zivic. They certainly would have lost less than 64 times.
You are also overlooking that his opponents often were fighting with a short time between fights as well.
If Zivic fought in more modern times, he would have a lot less fights. If he only had 40 fights like Pryor, he would not have gone 39-1. He would have found a way to lose at least 6 or 7 fights to mediocre fighters.

You may have him your 200, as I have said several times I don't think he quite makes it but can see if someone else does. However, if you ever make a top 100, you may be surprised as to who have to leave out.

No I haven't dropped my system. As I have said many times, I think you have to balance the good with the bad. Never said there was a sophisticated mathematical formula or a golden key or anything else like that. Of course it's still going to a matter of opinion. It's just an opinion that uses more useful information, not pretending something did not happen that did. Just using commonsense, that's all.

I am trying to rate fighters the same way, instead of cherry picking factors that might help guys that I like, (and ignoring those factors on someone I don't) which is what many people do.

I have explained this about as simple as I can, in many different ways. Really not interested in trying anymore with you. You are clearly not interested.

[Ezzard]

Zivic would have a team of people around him like all the top guys do today... He would have been carefully matched... The people who put money behind him wouldn't have allowed him to lose fights. Investments are protected.

You're looking back in time through the wrong end of the telescope.

Nobody cares that Marlon Brando was in some terrible films.
Or that Manchester United once lost to Wrexham.
Or that Einstein made many, many calculating errors in his relativity theory (all well documented now).

Boxing is about testing yourself against the very best. Fighting the very best should ALWAYS be rewarded...and the more times you do it the better.

[misterpunch]

brilliant reply by ezzard. you nailed it. zivic fights today he is not allowed to lose that many because the game is not the same. you didn't worry if you lost back then and this really tears this silly rating system apart. zivic is top 100 quality theres no doubt in my mind. and he finds a way to lose 7 or 8 fights? that's ridiculous! ambling alp, I really do not think you have grasped the very important differences between boxing then and boxing today.

that's stuff about marlo brando was inspired thinking mr ezzard

[Ambling Alp II]

The stuff about Brando was one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Thought we were talking about boxing not the movies. (Btw, a movies's success has a lot to do with writing , directing, co-stars etc. which vary with every movie.)

In the NBA, the Cavaliers have one of the worst records and probably won't make the playoffs. However, recently, they beat Oklahoma City who has one of the best records. Should the NBA just throw out win/loss records and let Cleveland in the playoffs because they had a big win?

Yeah, I think he would have found a way to lose some fights. He did it all through his career. Yes he fought a lot. Taking that into account. (Also taking into account that many of his opponents did the same thing.) He would have had a higher winning % if he fought in modern times, but he would have lost a few. He would not have gone 39-1.


If Pryor and Trinidad had to fight 8 fights in 8 months, none against great fighters, do you really they think either would have gone 0-8? Still waiting for someone defending Zivic to answer this.


As for the top 100, just some food for thought. When we did the Boxrec Hall of Fame, 124 fighters were elected after 20 elections. Zivic was not one of them. On the last ballot, Ezzard could have included Zivic as one of 25 fighters that he could vote for. (4 fighters were elected.) He did not vote for him.
The number 100 is way smaller than people think when rating tens of thousands of fighters over 120 years.