Fritzie Zivic, he fought them all

[Controversial]

The problem with the old timers is home town decisions were common place, as was thrown fights and corruption. Several of Zivics losses were to fighters in their hometown. Of course he may have genuinely been beaten, simply not been trying too hard or just been stiffed. Remember only a handful of fighters earned half decent money in that era, fighting was simply a way for many to feed their families and was more of a necessity than a way of becoming rich. Thats why they fought so often, it amounted to a weekly or monthly pay cheque, often combined with another job on the side.

Today its much more about generating big bucks and steering fighters to a title shot without them losing, its a business. Ratings are all very subjective.

Of course the reason many of the old timers were better fighters was because they had to keep active, meaning they would try hard. Plus they built up so much experience they became very proficient in the art. Today someone like British heavyweight Audley Harrison was given a million pound contract before throwing one punch as a pro, can't do much for his 'hunger'. How many top pros hold down a full time job today? Even the decent amateurs are often sponsored so they can compete on a full time basis, the eras are like chalk and cheese.

[misterpunch]

and all those points - especially in your first paragraph - which you and I and ezzard have constantly outlined to the alp - are the very real reasons why his rating system doesn't work. funny how he never comments on the reasons we give. maybe he believes our sport - like Hovis - is the same today as it always was.

I repeat - zivic is a top 100 all time boxer

[Datsue]

A certain person's contribution to this thread is like the Cliff's notes cheat-sheet on "How people with long-involved ludicrously detailed & inventive ways of expressing qualitative data in a quantitative format, with charts & graphs & everything!" infest sports.

It is the Great Clomping Foot of Nerdism, & makes us Very Afraid.

Spare a thought for the true victim of this, the poor fvck who gets trapped in a kitchen at a party with no-one to talk to but someone who's worked out a points system to account for why Daniel Zaragoza was an inferior fighter to Danny Romero.

PS: This thread has also been fun because of the particular inventiveness of tonight's star of "Asperger's Anonymous: Boxing Stat-Keeper Edition". It's been real, as ver kidz say.

[elmersalsa]

and all those points - especially in your first paragraph - which you and I and ezzard have constantly outlined to the alp - are the very real reasons why his rating system doesn't work. funny how he never comments on the reasons we give. maybe he believes our sport - like Hovis - is the same today as it always was.

I repeat - zivic is a top 100 all time boxer

He could be. He got credentials. It is depending of every other person's view.

[elmersalsa]

Why all of us COLLECTIVELY, make our top 100 greatest fighters of all time for boxrec.com and see the results? THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF ARGUMENTS FROM #1 TO #100

[Datsue]

I would prefer not to.

[Ambling Alp II]

and all those points - especially in your first paragraph - which you and I and ezzard have constantly outlined to the alp - are the very real reasons why his rating system doesn't work. funny how he never comments on the reasons we give. maybe he believes our sport - like Hovis - is the same today as it always was.

I repeat - zivic is a top 100 all time boxer

I thought I had answered all of your comments let me know which one's I have not and I will be happy to respond.
There are questions that I have asked that keep getting ducked:
Still waiting for someone to respond if they really think Aaron Pryor or Felix Trinidad would have gone 0-8 over a period of 8 months with 5 opponents not being in the top 10 like Zivic did.

Where should Johnny Risko be rated overall and as a heavyweight?

Where do we rate all of the journeyman that beat Zivic? How about Rueben Shank for example?

For the umpteenth time, my "rating system" is not some mathematical formula or anything like that. I just look at all of fighters fights, not just not the ones that he won. You know, like what is done in just about every sport.

Thanks for repeating that Zivic is a top 100 fighter of all time. I will repeat, no he is not.

[Controversial]

Everyones lists will be totally different and to some extent biased. Zivic only defended the title once and has many losses so of course he can be picked apart easier, even though he fought some of the greatest opposition. I can easily see why he wouldn't be in someones top 100 if you are including every weight division. If we were picking the greatest welterweights only Zivic has a good case to be in the top 25.

[misterpunch]

ok - i'll ask you again - jeeezusss - how can you compare fighters from different eras based merely on stats? in my view you cant. you just cannot!!
as I have said time and again - to fighters like zivic and in zivics era a LOSS WAS NOT A BIG DEAL!! he might well have had a bad bit of fish for dinner that night before the bout. he might have had a few late nights prior to the bout. he might have had a bloke offer him a grand to make it look like his opponent was a prospect. did you factor in the fish, the fuzzy head or the fistful of dollars?
if you want to answer these - and you haven't yet, contrary to your claims - and still wish to hail your system as valid, then get on with it.
I myself steer clear from making ludicrous ratings of boxers and just evaluate through judging their skill, power and/or mastery of the ring

[Datsue]

ok - i'll ask you again - jeeezusss - how can you compare fighters from different eras based merely on stats? in my view you cant. you just cannot!!
as I have said time and again - to fighters like zivic and in zivics era a LOSS WAS NOT A BIG DEAL!! he might well have had a bad bit of fish for dinner that night before the bout. he might have had a few late nights prior to the bout. he might have had a bloke offer him a grand to make it look like his opponent was a prospect. did you factor in the fish, the fuzzy head or the fistful of dollars?
if you want to answer these - and you haven't yet, contrary to your claims - and still wish to hail your system as valid, then get on with it.
I myself steer clear from making ludicrous ratings of boxers and just evaluate through judging their skill, power and/or mastery of the ring

[Ambling Alp II]

As I have said over and over, I am not simply comparing fighters from different eras merely on stats. There is no mathematical formula that you can plug into a computer and presto have the answers. Never said that.

I am just using common sense and looking at the good and the bad. I am giving him credit for his big wins, and and taking into consideration that he fought a lot and the occasional upset loss is understandable.
However, those losses during his prime have to count for something. They should not simply be swept under the rug.

Bad fish for dinner? Seriously? I suppose it could have happened once. Throughout his career? Come on.
Took $ to make a prospect look good? If he did, than that's on him.
Too many late nights? That's his own fault. He was a professional and should know not to do that.

If you really are going to buy into these lame dog ate my homework excuses, then you have buy them for his opponents. Maybe the reason Zivic beat Burley or Armstrong or whoever was because Burley or Armstrong stayed out too late or because they had bad fish or their pet hamster just died or whatever.
Then we can't count Zivic's wins either.
You can't have it both ways, which is what a lot of people like to do.

For that matter, you have to accept those type of excuses for just about every fighter whoever lived.

Still waiting for answers to my questions that keep getting ducked.

[misterpunch]

you'll never get it...I give up!

[Ambling Alp II]

You are the one that doesn't get it. At least I respond to your questions and points; unlike you who ducks mine.

[misterpunch]

ok i'll answer your very pressing questions which have absolutely no bearing on this argument at all.

prior and tito? of course not, its a different era for fecks sake
risko? - as I don't like heavyweights and am not an expert on that division I couldn't give a flying feck about risko; but I'm sure you could use your magic system to put him in the top 5 of all time

what other great question did you ask? oh yeah! how do we rate the mugs that fritzie zivic carried and was very generous to? - well, I rate them as mugs that got carried by generous guys like fritzie zivic

happy now?

[misterpunch]

Fritzie Zivic had 233 fights in a very long career. He was also a serving soldier in the US army in the 1940's sometimes taking fights with a few days notice and on furlough from his army duties when he was back home in the states. He lost 65 fights and of those losses he was only KO'd 3 times. ONLY 3 TIMES!!!! (one was by Sugar Ray Robinson), one was by Milt Aron - Fritzie was winning that fight easily and then Aron swung a punch and it somehow connected. Zivic avenged that one a few months later. Lets focus on the end of Zivics career, when he had the statistically appalling losses you - mr alp - are hounding him about.
Here's the report from the fight with Clyde Gordon "After several ineffectual forays Zivic covered up to let the 18 year old Gordon hammer him until the judges called a halt" Fritzie was 34 and the fight was his 229th.
Does this fight affect his standing in any rating system?
How about the last fight with Ruben Shank "Fritzie Zivic, who was giving his opponent 4 pounds and 8 years, hit shank after the bell to end the 6th round - a round he may have won - and ultimately cost himself the fight" Does this sound like the aged Zivic was really trying to win? Not in my eyes. So can we include that in any assessment of the boxing status of Fritzie Zivic? Again, not in my eyes.
He lost to Freddie Archer - another stiff - but a young fresh guy on the up when Zivic was old and taking fights purely for money, his title days long behind him.
Heres the report for the bout against Harold Green, who was flat on his back in the 6th "The bell ending the 6th round rang and saved 21 year old Green - who is hoping for a shot at Freddie Cochranes title - from a certain KO. The count reached 4 when the bell came to the stricken young prospects aid. The crowd was amazed when Green emerged clear headed and full of fight. He went on to win a UD against Zivic who is currently on 15 days furlough from the army"
Another loss came against Al Priest. The news report says "Zivic won only two rounds. Priest was the aggressor and gave Zivic a going over." - I don't know how he managed to beat Hank Armstrong if he was so inept to lose to a guy like Priest! Perhaps he was trying too hard!
The other KO loss I have not mentioned was against Kid Azteca who, I don't know if you know, was a very big hitter. A really vicious puncher. Fritzie was frail and just could not withstand the heavy whacks of Azteca. Few could.
Perhaps this fight has a direct affect on our assessment of Fritzie Zivic. What do you reckon? There are some fights he gave away even in his prime, but the major point I am making is he always lost those grubber type of fights on points. If he was so bad he'd have got KO'd far more often.
Do you still think Zivic lost all those fights trying his heart out? Do you really think the decisions he lost to all those eager young prospects were always fair decisions? Do you really think taking fights for money, with hardly any training due to army duties and with your glory days a distant memory, should affect your standing as one of the toughest, smartest, ring warriors of all time? Fritzie Zivic deserves to be considered as one of the greatest fighters ever - but you might have to do a bit of homework - away from the stats - before you realise it.

[Ambling Alp II]

As I have said numerous times, I am not talking about fights when he was old. So no, those fights doesn't hurt my assessment of him.
I do hold it against him for losing fights to mediocre fighters when he was in his prime. And there were a lot of them. Obviously if he only had 40 or 50 fights in his career, a single upset loss is a bigger deal. However, an upset loss even when you are fighting a lot has to count against you to a certain extent. Dozens of them hurt you quite a bit.

A point that keeps getting ignored is that often Zivic's opponent was fighting quite a bit too, which evens things out.
Do I think he was trying his best? Don't know and don't really care. If you lose a fight because you aren't trying your best, that is no excuse at all.

[Ambling Alp II]

ok i'll answer your very pressing questions which have absolutely no bearing on this argument at all.

prior and tito? of course not, its a different era for fecks sake
risko? - as I don't like heavyweights and am not an expert on that division I couldn't give a flying feck about risko; but I'm sure you could use your magic system to put him in the top 5 of all time

what other great question did you ask? oh yeah! how do we rate the mugs that fritzie zivic carried and was very generous to? - well, I rate them as mugs that got carried by generous guys like fritzie zivic

happy now?

Someone else brought up Pryor and Trinidad. Of course they fought in a different era. I said if Pryor and Trinidad had to fight as often as Zivic, ( 8 times in 8 months, only against 3 ranked contenders like Zivic) would they have gone 0-8?
That is a fair question. Again, you didn't answer it. So will answer it for you. Not hey would not. They would not been up for all 8, and got upset a time or 2. Maybe they go 7-1 or 6-2. 0-8 like Zivic? No way.

I am fully aware that modern fighters don't don't fight that often and have weak opponents quite a bit. Taking that into consideration. If anything, I have been accused of favoring the old-timers.

Of course you don't care Johnny Risko. You don't want to think about anything that hurts your case against Zivic.
You are just looking at the pros. I am looking at the pros and the cons.
Like Zivic he had a lot of fights. Like Zivic he was very inconsistent. He beat 7 Hall of Famers in career, including Sharkey, Godfrey, Baer, and Loughran. Also beat contenders Schaaaf, and Uzcudun twice. No one rates him that high. Never seen him rated as the one the top 10 (or 50 for that matter) heavyweights or the top 100 of all fighters.
Why not? Because he also lost many times to both good and not so good fighters.

[misterpunch]

I'm beginning to think that your a little soft in the head - not answer you? did I or did I not say about prior and tito the words "...OF COURSE NOT" - GO BACK AND READ IT SMART GUY. for christs sweet sake!!!
I WROTE "I DONT CARE ABOUT RISKO BECAUSE I DONT CARE ABOUT HEAVYWEIGHTS" WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ZIVIC? ZIVIC WAS A WELTERWEIGHT!! RISKO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! HE ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN THE WORST HEAVYWEIGHT ERA OF ALL - AGAINST SUCH GREATS AS MAXIE BAER AND SHARKEY!! WOW! STICK HIM IN, WHY DONT YA! NEXT TO JACK JOHNSON OR GEORGE FOREMAN OR LARRY HOLMES. RISKO? OOOHHHEEE!!!! HE WAS ONE TO AVOID! HEY, MAYBE POUND FOR POUND HE RATES ALONGSIDE ZIVIC! THATS FRITZIE ZIVIC. THE ZIVIC WHO CAMPAIGNED SUCCESSFULLY IN THE GREATEST ERA OF WELTERWEIGHTS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. OK LETS PUT HIM ALONGSIDE ANOTHER GREAT, JOHNNY RISKO. THE JOHNNY RISKO WHO CONQUERED JACK SHARKEY AND OTHER GREATS OF THE FIGHT GAME.

YOU MAKE ME CRY

and you only mentioned zivic's age once in all your posts in this thread not "numerous times" as you claim. I checked.

[Datsue]

I'm beginning to think that your a little soft in the head - not answer you? did I or did I not say about prior and tito the words "...OF COURSE NOT" - GO BACK AND READ IT SMART GUY. for christs sweet sake!!!
I WROTE "I DONT CARE ABOUT RISKO BECAUSE I DONT CARE ABOUT HEAVYWEIGHTS" WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH ZIVIC? ZIVIC WAS A WELTERWEIGHT!! RISKO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! HE ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN THE WORST HEAVYWEIGHT ERA OF ALL - AGAINST SUCH GREATS AS MAXIE BAER AND SHARKEY!! WOW! STICK HIM IN, WHY DONT YA! NEXT TO JACK JOHNSON OR GEORGE FOREMAN OR LARRY HOLMES. RISKO? OOOHHHEEE!!!! HE WAS ONE TO AVOID! HEY, MAYBE POUND FOR POUND HE RATES ALONGSIDE ZIVIC! THATS FRITZIE ZIVIC. THE ZIVIC WHO CAMPAIGNED SUCCESSFULLY IN THE GREATEST ERA OF WELTERWEIGHTS THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. OK LETS PUT HIM ALONGSIDE ANOTHER GREAT, JOHNNY RISKO. THE JOHNNY RISKO WHO CONQUERED JACK SHARKEY AND OTHER GREATS OF THE FIGHT GAME.

YOU MAKE ME CRY

and you only mentioned zivic's age once in all your posts in this thread not "numerous times" as you claim. I checked.

[misterpunch]

I'm sorry for getting angry

[Ambling Alp II]

No you didn't answer me . I asked how Trinidad and Pryor would have done had they fought 8 times in 8 months (like Zivic did). Would they have gone 0-8? You didn't answer the question. You said "of course not, its a different era for fecks sake". That doesn't really answer the question. Would they gone 0-8 in similar circumstances is the question.

You don't care about heavyweights, fine. (And no, Risko didn't fight in the worst era of heavyweight, not by a long shot.) However, if you are going to talk about where a fighter should ranked on an all-time list including heavyweights, you have to include heavyweights, like an other weight class. So any fighter who ever fought is relevant.
My point, which I guess once again you missed, is that Risko while a good fighter, should not be rated alongside Jack Johnson, George Foreman, and Larry Holmes.
Likewise, Zivic should not be rated them if we are rating all fighters, nor should he be rated among the very best welterweights.

Your last comment says a lot:
"and you only mentioned zivic's age once in all your posts in this thread not "numerous times" as you claim. I checked."

Check again. I referred to age 4 times before I said that I had commented about numerous times , including very early in the thread.

On March 1, (page 1 of the thread) I said I was not talking about threads before he got old.
On March 2, (page 2 of the thread) I said that I'm not talking including fights when he got old.
On March 5, (Page 2 of the thread) I said that I am taking into consideration the stages of fighter's careers.
On March 11, (page 3)I said that however, those losses during his prime have to count for something.

This part of the problem. You are clearly not actually reading everything I say. You are skimming through it and missing key points over and over.

As I have said over and over, if you fight a huge amount of fights like Zivic, a few bad losses is not nearly as important as someone with a short career. However, those losses count for something. Many other great fighters fought a huge amount of fights like Zivic and didn't have nearly as many bad losses close to their primes. (Jack Britton, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Jack Dillion, Harry Greb, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Battling Levinsky, Ted Kid Lewis, Freddie Miller, Maxsie Rosenbloom, Young Stribling, Midget Wolgast, to name a few)
Zivic (as himself freely admitted) was a dirty fighter. Though he had a good chin and he was tough, he was not particularly talented and simply tried to foul his way to victory against superior opponents. This evened things up a bit, and at times was enough for him to score a major win. Had he fought in most other eras he would not have been able to do this without getting penalized and disqualified many times. Previous to the 1930s, you could get dq'd for one low blow. No way he would have got away with half this stuff in the last few decades either.
Zivic was better than the vast majority of fighters who ever fought. He was not as good as the truly great fighters.

Being fairly consistent even with a large amount of fights was possible. Zivic just wan't good enough to do it.

We don't agree. Fine. I'm sure we agree about other things and will in the future.

[misterpunch]

I'm now not sorry I got angry.

I cant believe you wrote this: zivic had a good chin was tough but he wasn't particularly talented.

I will never give any of your posts the time of day again - you clearly know absolutely nothing about boxing - you have lost my respect and I hope this closes the thread. I will not reply to any post of yours forthwith

[Ambling Alp II]

Sorry you feel this way. We can't all agree on everything, it would be boring if we did. I just wish people would read what other people have said.

As for getting angry, just try to control it in the future. There is always going to be opinions that you don't agree with.

[misterpunch]

OH NO THERE ISNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!