BoxRec

Zivic's career is very difficult to evaluate. He fought a lot of good or great fighters and had several very good wins. He also lost way too often to ordinary fighters.

Zivic was one of the best fighters ever,

Robinson, Armstrong and Conn knew that and said that.

Take a look at Zivic's record and see how many black fighters (Eddie Booker, Charlie Burley etc) he beat.

Zivic had the perfect boxer's build.

He has the best boxing stance (coiled) of any fighter I have seen.
(I have the film of him against Sammy Angott one fight before he won the title from Armstrong).

What a crime they did not film the two Zivic-Armstrong fights.

you overrate him. in checking his record to see how many black fighters he beat i could not help noticing how many men of all creeds and colours he lost to. perhaps you wish me to turn a blind eye to this fact.
perfect builds - apparently - do not stop you from peppering your record with losses that you really should have won.
however, lets not make up our own minds lets leave it to robinson, conn and hank to tell us what we think.

Sugar Ray Robinson, Billy Conn and Henry Armstrong rated Fritzie Zivic at the top. (They all fought him).

But what they know about boxing.

I tend to look at a fighter's best wins and be generous in rating them. Beating a top fighter shows what a boxer is capable of. Losing fights like Zivic did means maybe he wasn't always focused, perhaps he took too many at short notice etc...

I look at accumulating positives for a fighter and the more thay accumulate the higher I rank them. I only really downgrade a guy when the manner of his defeat shows a problem with is style, chin, heart etc...

When assessing a footballer or a tennis player people count what they won they don't count the losses. People would say he won 10 grand slams and was runner-up on 8 other occasions. They wouldn't say but he lost at round 1 in the French open twice.

In many ways the overplaying of defeats has ruined the sport. Too many fighters are too carefully matched.

firstly, please go back to my original reply to grans assertion about zivic.
i stated that fritzie was a top rank fighter whos record was blighted by numerous losses in the latter part of it.
i loved fritzie zivic. one of the most notable guys in the history of our sport. but i disagree with gran - who bases much of his worth on zivics build - henry armstrong, billy conn and ray robinson in their putting zivic at the pinnacle of the boxing tree.
fighters often say conflicting things at different times about who was the best they ever fought. his appaling tail end record doesnt affect my reckoning of him. merely that no other top ranker has so poor a record in his last years.

harrygreb wrote:firstly, please go back to my original reply to grans assertion about zivic.
i stated that fritzie was a top rank fighter whos record was blighted by numerous losses in the latter part of it.
i loved fritzie zivic. one of the most notable guys in the history of our sport. but i disagree with gran - who bases much of his worth on zivics build - henry armstrong, billy conn and ray robinson in their putting zivic at the pinnacle of the boxing tree.
fighters often say conflicting things at different times about who was the best they ever fought. his appaling tail end record doesnt affect my reckoning of him. merely that no other top ranker has so poor a record in his last years.

harry, no criticism of your rating or anyone else's just putting in my perspective.

you're very welcome.

I just wanted to make a few points about Zivic:
-Losses count. They have to. Consistency matters. It's not fair to the great fighters that do take care of business against lesser fighters.
Yes, Win/loss records can be deceiving. Of course a loss to Henry Armstrong isn't the same as losing as losing to a club fighter. They need to be weighed accordingly.
-Yes, sometimes Zivic took a fight on short notice and fought with injuries etc. However, so did most fighters in his era. His opponents often fought under the same circumstances as he did. so it's not like he was always fighting at a disadvantage. Sometimes he was the one with the advantage.

Also, other great fighters from his era had far fewer losses. We are talking about more than 60 losses here. More than 30 were to guys who weren't even in the Top 10 at the time.

-Yes in a sport like tennis, people don't talk about losses much. (Maybe they should) It really doesn't matter in the long run to most people if a player lost in the 4th round or the first. However, that is a different format than Boxing.
You could just as easily say that in the NFL losses count just as much as wins. If you only go 8-8, you aren't going to make the playoffs just because you have a few wins against top teams.

Like any fighter, Zivic's big wins have to be weighed against his losses, especially his losses to ordinary fighters.
Zivic is a unique case because he had so many relatively embarrassing losses, and also had so many big wins. Both have to be factored in.

Benny Lynch should also be considered.
Surprised we dont have him in yet.

Almost forgot. Les Darcy was never knocked down in his 50 fights.

Seamus wrote:Almost forgot. Les Darcy was never knocked down in his 50 fights.

Amazing.

Ambling Alp wrote:I just wanted to make a few points about Zivic:
-Losses count. They have to. Consistency matters. It's not fair to the great fighters that do take care of business against lesser fighters.
Yes, Win/loss records can be deceiving. Of course a loss to Henry Armstrong isn't the same as losing as losing to a club fighter. They need to be weighed accordingly.
-Yes, sometimes Zivic took a fight on short notice and fought with injuries etc. However, so did most fighters in his era. His opponents often fought under the same circumstances as he did. so it's not like he was always fighting at a disadvantage. Sometimes he was the one with the advantage.

Also, other great fighters from his era had far fewer losses. We are talking about more than 60 losses here. More than 30 were to guys who weren't even in the Top 10 at the time.

-Yes in a sport like tennis, people don't talk about losses much. (Maybe they should) It really doesn't matter in the long run to most people if a player lost in the 4th round or the first. However, that is a different format than Boxing.
You could just as easily say that in the NFL losses count just as much as wins. If you only go 8-8, you aren't going to make the playoffs just because you have a few wins against top teams.

Like any fighter, Zivic's big wins have to be weighed against his losses, especially his losses to ordinary fighters.
Zivic is a unique case because he had so many relatively embarrassing losses, and also had so many big wins. Both have to be factored in.

I understand your point.
But the mind set I think was a little different back then.
When you fight so often, your bound to have some off nights.
However, Zivic as I posted earlier has fought and beat some legends who are already in.
I really see him as the quintessential fighters,fighter. A real pro.
He could box, punch and of course he knew all the tricks and rough stuff.
Also, remember, Sam Langford who gets a lot of respect around here , and justifiably so, had 47 losses in his career.

Does anyone think that things other than win/loss ratio should be taken into account for Hall of Fame inclusion?
Perhaps a good boxing record plus a huge popular legacy ?
In this regard I think Les Darcy is worth consideration. Even now books and articles are still being written. What would the folllowing have been like if he had won a title.

Ambling Alp wrote:I just wanted to make a few points about Zivic:
-Losses count. They have to. Consistency matters. It's not fair to the great fighters that do take care of business against lesser fighters.
Yes, Win/loss records can be deceiving. Of course a loss to Henry Armstrong isn't the same as losing as losing to a club fighter. They need to be weighed accordingly.
-Yes, sometimes Zivic took a fight on short notice and fought with injuries etc. However, so did most fighters in his era. His opponents often fought under the same circumstances as he did. so it's not like he was always fighting at a disadvantage. Sometimes he was the one with the advantage.

Also, other great fighters from his era had far fewer losses. We are talking about more than 60 losses here. More than 30 were to guys who weren't even in the Top 10 at the time.

-Yes in a sport like tennis, people don't talk about losses much. (Maybe they should) It really doesn't matter in the long run to most people if a player lost in the 4th round or the first. However, that is a different format than Boxing.
You could just as easily say that in the NFL losses count just as much as wins. If you only go 8-8, you aren't going to make the playoffs just because you have a few wins against top teams.

Like any fighter, Zivic's big wins have to be weighed against his losses, especially his losses to ordinary fighters.
Zivic is a unique case because he had so many relatively embarrassing losses, and also had so many big wins. Both have to be factored in.

Alp, I know we look at things differently... No way of rating is better than another...

IMO you can compare Zivic with his contemporaries in terms of losses and say he wasn't as consistent but you can't really compare that ratio with fighters say from the 80s or 90s where guys have fewer fights and are managed very differently.

If Zivic (just used as an example) was always getting KO'd by left hooks in the final rounds than that tells us he has a weakness (or two)...

If you over play losses then you are giving guys who fought less and who were managed more cautiously a big advantage. You are also rewarding them in a way which is detrimetal to the sport (i.e. take as few risks with your career as possible).

I understand your point about winning % can't be the only factor. Of course it's easier to have a higher winning % when you are only fighting a few times a year and especially against carefully chosen opponents. You don't have to look far to find guys with high winning %'s who can't fight at all.

Having said that, it does bear repeating that his opponents were fighting under the same circumstances. It wasn't like Zivic was constantly fighting a guy after 2 only weeks off and his opponent was training just for Zivic for the past few months and was fresher than Zivic. That opponent was usually fighting a lot too and often had minor injuries as well.

More importantly, take a hard look at Zivic's career. Of course he fought a lot of good and even great fighters, and won sometimes. However, it wasn't like all of his fights were against top fighters. He fought quite a few ordinary fighters as well. Over 30 of his losses were guys who weren't even in the Top 10 at the time Zivic fought them.
I am not just talking about fights at the end of his career either. This was throughout his entire career.
If Zivic should make the Hall of Fame because he has wins over Armstrong, Burley etc. than shouldn't all 30 of the ordinary fighters that beat Zivic make it as well?
What about all of the guys that beat those guys?

It's true that other fighters had a lot of losses as well, such as Sam Langford. However, Langford, had 18 fewer losses than Zivic and had more than 80 more fights.
Morever, Langford seldom had an embarrassing loss. Almost all of his losses were either at the end of career, or against guys that he had beat. (ie his long rivalries with Wills,Jeannette, and McVey.)

As for comparing Zivic to guys (usually more modern fighters) who only had say 40-60 fights, well it depends on who you are comparing him to.

If that fighter was something like 50-5 against weak competiton than he probably wasn't as good as Zivic. Or of course he if had a poor record against tough competition than he wasn't as good as Zivic.
If that guy fought very tough competition and went something like 50-5 than that guy probably was better than Zivic.
To me that is the crux of the matter. If Zivic was fighting in more modern times, I don't think that he would have had that great of a record. A higher winning % than he did have, yes. However, it's not like he wouldn't have lost several times.
Conversely, I think that a great modern fighter who fought the exact opponents that Zivic did would have lost less often than Zivic.

Zivic won less than 70% of his fights in career. As mentioned before, quite a few of fights were not against top competition. That isn't a legend.

Again, I'm not saying that winning % can't be deceiving. You have to look at every fight of a fighters career. You have to look at the competition and the stage of not only that fighter's but each opponent as well.

The bottom line is that there are many fighters who deserve more consideration than Zivic.
1. Fighters who fought a lot of fights like Zivic (and similar level of competition) who lost a lot less often than Zivic should be voted in before Zivic.
2. Fighters who fought a lot less than Zivic but had a much higher winning % and who fought a lot of tough competition should be put in before Zivic.

Obviously Zivic was better than the vast majority of fighters who have ever fought. However, there are still quite a few fighters who haven't been voted in yet that deserve to be put in before Zivic.

Didn't Lamar Clark have a pretty good winning percentage? Please don't respond....I'm just kidding.

..zivic was a dirty fighter, lost a huge number of fights. one zivic supporter quite a while back said that some of these losses were fixes set up by the mob. this is hardly a recommendatiion for hall of fame status. he doesn't belong in there.

now that is harsh

Zivic was better than several other members of the International Boxing Hall of Fame, which goes back to 1989 and has more than 200 fighters.

However, our Boxrec Hall of Fame has only be around for two years and only has 63 fighters. There are certainly more fighters who haven't been elected yet who are more deserving.

greb.....yes it is harsh. i meant it to be.

i think zivic deserves better than that.

..harry...i'm sure there are more people here who agree with you than agree with me. yes, he fought and beat some good fighters...but i think his being in the hall of fame would be a disgrace.

Jaclem wrote:.. i think his being in the hall of fame would be a disgrace.

Why?

He beat Henry Armstrong twice in title fights---and stopped Armstrong in their 2nd fight.

Who else could do that?

He beat Eddie Booker (Booker KO'd Archie Moore and beat Lloyd Marshall),

he beat Jake LaMotta on a 15 round decision,

he beat Charley Burley

lost a split decision to Billy Conn

Booker, Burley, LaMotta and Conn were all bigger than he was.

I should make the case for Jose Basora to be in the Boxrec HOF.

78 W, 20 L, and 7 D

Vs. Fritzie Zivic, 1W
Vs Holman Williams, 2W, 1D, and 3L
Vs Jake LaMotta, 1W, 1D, and 2L
Vs Ezzard Charles,1L
Vs prime Sugar Ray Robinson, 1D and 1L


What about Cocoa Kid?

177W, 56L, and 11D

Vs Louis Kaplan, 1W
Vs Holman Williams, 7W, 2L, and 2D
Vs Charley Burley, 1D and 1L
Vs Chalky Wright, 1W
Vs Kid Azteca, 1W, 1D, and 2L
Vs Eddie Booker, 1W