BoxRec

How do you rate Jack Root, George Gardner, and Bob Fitzsimmons?

How do you think these guys would do today, among the middleweight, light heavyweight, cruiserweight, and heavyweight divisions?

Jack Root beat big guys like 6' 4 Fred Russell and stocky Jim Flynn, and was knocked out in 12 rounds by Marvin Hart, the controversial World Heavyweight Champion.

George Gardner beat guys like 6' 4 Jim Jeffords and stocky Marvin Hart, and when out of his prime, went 14, 18, and 20 rounds with heavyweights Al Kaufman, Mike Shreck, and Jim Flynn, and he went the distance with Jack Johnson, a true heavyweight of his time.

Fitz beat 6' 2 Gus Ruhlin and 6' 1 Jim Corbett, but was KO'd in 2 rounds by Jack Johnson.


Root looked tough, looked like a fighter.
George looked like an average guy, almost skinny, but in some pictures looked tough.
Fitz was weak looking, almost skinny, but in a few glamour photos looked kind of tough.

I've been reading newspapers from that time period and find this:

Jack Root was a handsome, popular fighter, and arguably the first Light Heavyweight Champion of the World, who was 40 - 0 until he met George Gardner, and he mostly fought middleweights, never really fought out of his weight class even though he was a contender in three different weight divisions.

George Gardner was one of the toughest fighters, was never knocked out in his prime, and never was finished in the early rounds.
Billy Madden stated that "Gardner is a great fighter. Many believe he is the best man at 165 pounds. If he put on 20 pounds, Gardner could trim any fighter in the world." The Irishman defeated reigning Welterweight Champion Joe Wolcott, and he weighed 155 pounds when he went 20 rounds to a split decision with 185 - pound Jack Johnson, and lost a decision to Fitzsimmons for the title. Gardner knocked out Jack Root and Marvin Hart, the future heavyweight champion.
A newspaper noted that Gardner was a "marvel" when it came to striking and "can take all kinds of punishment".
He was more noted for his toughness, but newspapers also note his cleverness, especially against Peter Maher and Jim Jeffords.

Bob Fitzsimmons is of course the most highly rated. He was the first triple division title champion. Fitz beat Maher, Corbett, and won a decision over George. However, when he fought big Jack Johnson, he was KO'd in 2 rounds. He really was a living legend though and for an Englishman/Australian living in America, it is strange that he was popular.

Today's Boxing:
Jack Root - Super Middleweight
George Gardner - Middleweight
Bob Fitzsimmons - Light Heavyweight

coreygardner wrote: Today's Boxing:
Jack Root - Super Middleweight
George Gardner - Middleweight
Bob Fitzsimmons - Light Heavyweight

With 24 hour weigh ins Fitzsimmons would probably be a middleweight.

Fitz was never really more than a natural middleweight. After he lost the heavyweight crown, he still weighed in below 160 at least a couple of times - even when he didn't have to.

Anyway, regardless of which divisions we choose for these gentlemen, I don't think any of them would be in the top-10 today. Boxing has simply evolved too far over the past 100 years, for them to be competitive against today's best boxers.

Bundana wrote:Fitz was never really more than a natural middleweight. After he lost the heavyweight crown, he still weighed in below 160 at least a couple of times - even when he didn't have to.

Anyway, regardless of which divisions we choose for these gentlemen, I don't think any of them would be in the top-10 today. Boxing has simply evolved too far over the past 100 years, for them to be competitive against today's best boxers.

oh my god......you just opened a can of worms

Bundana wrote:Fitz was never really more than a natural middleweight. After he lost the heavyweight crown, he still weighed in below 160 at least a couple of times - even when he didn't have to.

Anyway, regardless of which divisions we choose for these gentlemen, I don't think any of them would be in the top-10 today. Boxing has simply evolved too far over the past 100 years, for them to be competitive against today's best boxers.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, is the referees have gotten squeamish, commissions have made it impossible for someone to fight on a daily or weekly basis, promoters block important fights from happening, the pay is better today than then, and the gloves got bigger. Because of the latter, guys throw more punches in a round than they did then; throw 8-10oz gloves on ANYONE from the early 20th century you would see the same work rate, if not more so. Then again, boxing then was all about defense, you didnt waste shots, you prided yourself on being accurate. You have to be the most misinformed boxing fan I have ever heard. Everything guys do today, they did back then too. Combinations, fancy footwork, etc. it all was there then. Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Root, Jeffries, Johnson, Corbett, etc. all those old timers would have been in the top ten today if not holding at the very least an alphabet championship; the only thing that would hold them back today from an undisputed championship would be politics from the WBA/WBO/IBF/WBC, because those assholes want multiple champions per division so they can quadruple their money, rather than wait for their ranked mandatories to get a shot every year or so.

I think with the way things are today, the second Jeffries bout would have been stopped in Fitz' favour and he would have been the first person in history to regain the heavyweight title.

Easy to postulate though.

Fitz would have been the champ in many eras and a top contender in others in any weight class from middleweight to heavyweight. Root and Gardner would have been contenders in most eras at lightheavy; in a weak era they could have been a champion. Don't think they would have been serious contneders at cruiserweight, certainly not at heavyweight.

what homicide said so eloquently

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fitz would have been the champ in many eras and a top contender in others in any weight class from middleweight to heavyweight. Root and Gardner would have been contenders in most eras at lightheavy; in a weak era they could have been a champion. Don't think they would have been serious contneders at cruiserweight, certainly not at heavyweight.

Fitz' first world title was at 150 lbs. I dont think it is unrealistic to think that he could have been a World Welterweight champion.

If Fitz were around today, a Fitzsimmons v Anthony Mundine Australian Super Middleweight title match would be the most eagerly awaited fight in Australia. And I dare say, the result would make an awful lot of people happy.