How did Fritzie Zivic lose so much
How did Fritzie Zivic lose so much
He lost an ungodly number of fights. How come? I always thought he was very talented. He is a member of the hall of fame & everything, but how come he lost so many fights? Any clues?
Well, for one thing, he fought so often and with llittle rest between fights.There were years when he fought twenty timesl. Also, he fought just about everybody in his weight class. over twenty of those losses came in the last two full years of his career.
Other reasons: good referees. the dirtiest fighter of all time,at least among the big name fighters. Opponents were actually intimidated by the idea of getting their eyes damaged. When Sugar Ray insisted on fighting him his sister (maybe it was his mother) protested..said "He'll ruin you...he'll put your eyes out." What he did to Henry Armstrong was criminal. I have no idea how he got into the HOF..and I'm not talking about his dirty tactics as a barring factor...no fighter with 65 losses belongs in there, even with a total of 230 fights.
Other reasons: good referees. the dirtiest fighter of all time,at least among the big name fighters. Opponents were actually intimidated by the idea of getting their eyes damaged. When Sugar Ray insisted on fighting him his sister (maybe it was his mother) protested..said "He'll ruin you...he'll put your eyes out." What he did to Henry Armstrong was criminal. I have no idea how he got into the HOF..and I'm not talking about his dirty tactics as a barring factor...no fighter with 65 losses belongs in there, even with a total of 230 fights.
-
Tomato-Can
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 656
- Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
Well, yes...but....one of the things Sugar Ray said Zivic taught him was to show how to butt a guy and make it look like he was butting YOU. Also, he said Zivic made an art form out of rubbing the laces on your face. Billy Conn, who was no angel, said Zivic showed him how to always stick the thumb in your eye in a clinch on the side away from the referees view.
Henry Armstrong was no devotee of the marquis of Queensbury rules, and could give it back, but Zivic used every foul listed in the rule book in their first fight, which made the legit uppercuts a little more effective. The reason Sugar Ray insisted on fighting Zivic..when many said he wasn't ready, was not because he beat Armstrong, but the vicious foul-filled way he did it.
As for mob help..it worked the other way too. When some of Zivic's foes went down, one writer said the splash got the folks in the cheap seats wet.
He was tough...no question...but if he were fighting with today's thumbless gloves he'd have a hard time getting into the top twenty.
Henry Armstrong was no devotee of the marquis of Queensbury rules, and could give it back, but Zivic used every foul listed in the rule book in their first fight, which made the legit uppercuts a little more effective. The reason Sugar Ray insisted on fighting Zivic..when many said he wasn't ready, was not because he beat Armstrong, but the vicious foul-filled way he did it.
As for mob help..it worked the other way too. When some of Zivic's foes went down, one writer said the splash got the folks in the cheap seats wet.
He was tough...no question...but if he were fighting with today's thumbless gloves he'd have a hard time getting into the top twenty.
FRITZIE DOES BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME. HE DID HAVE A LOT OF LOSSES BUT HE FOUGHT IN OTHER HOMETOWNS ON SHORT NOTICE AND HE DID BEAT SOME FAIRLY GOOD GUYS...LIKE SAY, HENRY ARMSTRONG.
HE WAS DIRTY BUT WAS NEVER DISQUALIFIED AND ONCE SAID -TODAY'S FIGHTERS ARE SO NAIVE THEY THINK THE LACES ARE FOR TYING UP THE GLOVES.
HE WAS DIRTY BUT WAS NEVER DISQUALIFIED AND ONCE SAID -TODAY'S FIGHTERS ARE SO NAIVE THEY THINK THE LACES ARE FOR TYING UP THE GLOVES.
okay terap...I admit I go a little overboard when it comes to Fritzie Zivic.obviously he had to be a good fighter to have beaten the guys he did, thumbs or no thumbs. It's just that the response"dirty fighter" when Zivic's name comes up, just a some would say "left hook' when Frazier is mentioned or "terrific chin" about LaMotta. I still stand by the quotes I listed thought, and I have the great "In This Corner" book. the Billy Conn comments came from different sources, and I think Armstrong actually admired Zivics tactics , as the Hammering one could use a few of them himself.
Now...while I may have exaggerated a bit....I've been looking at your posts and I see you have a take no prisoners approach yourself. Referees in on the fix.....protected fighters....this situation exsists, but not to the level you indicate..especially when it comes to reasons why a non-favorite of yours won all those fights...and favorites lost. but..I think futher comment along this line will pop in other posts.
Now...while I may have exaggerated a bit....I've been looking at your posts and I see you have a take no prisoners approach yourself. Referees in on the fix.....protected fighters....this situation exsists, but not to the level you indicate..especially when it comes to reasons why a non-favorite of yours won all those fights...and favorites lost. but..I think futher comment along this line will pop in other posts.