BoxRec

Fritizie Zivic often called one of the dirtiest fighters ever, Charley Burley claimed he was the dirtiest fighter he ever fought, but he fought anyone and everyone and sometimes fought 3 times a month in a careers from 1931-49. He fought 9 world champions and 7 hall of famers.

Opponents included Lou Ambers, Billy Conn, Sammy Angott, Charley Burley, Eddie Booker, Henry Armstrong, Al Bummy Davis, Lew Jenkins, Sugar Ray Robinson, Tommy Bell, Bob Montgomery, Beau Jack and Jake LaMotta to name a few.

“I learned more in these two fights with Zivic than in all my other fights put together!” said Ray Robinson

Best performances:

Charley Burley (W 10) - although by all accounts Burley easily won and Burley beat him in the rematch
Mike Kaplan (W 10)
Sammy Angott (W 10)
Eddie Booker (W8)
Henry Armstrong (W 15, WKO 12)
Lew Jenkins (WKO 10)
Red Cochrane (W 10)
Jake LaMotta (W 15)
Kid Azteca (W 10, W 10, W 10)
Billy Arnold (W8)
Izzy Jannazzo (WKO 4).


232 fights
------------
158 wins (82 KOs)
65 losses (4 by stoppage)
9 draws

How do you rank him?

Zivic is very hard to rate. As mentioned he had several really good wins. However, he also had a lot of losses; many of them to mediocre fighters.
Because he had so many losses, he isn't anywhere near the Top 100. He probably isn't in the top 200.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Zivic is very hard to rate. As mentioned he had several really good wins. However, he also had a lot of losses; many of them to mediocre fighters.
Because he had so many losses, he isn't anywhere near the Top 100. He probably isn't in the top 200.

Not in the top 200, are you serious? I agree he blew hot and cold but his record against some of the greatest fighters is impressive.

He gets in at the back-end of a Top-100 for me - sure he took some losses but he has wins (and losses) over: Burley, Armstrong, Angott, Jenkins and LaMotta.

I make it 10 HoF'ers he faced (not accounting for 'primes'): Ambers, Conn, Burley, Armstrong, Jenkins, Angott, Robinson, Jack, Montgomery and LaMotta.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Zivic is very hard to rate. As mentioned he had several really good wins. However, he also had a lot of losses; many of them to mediocre fighters.
Because he had so many losses, he isn't anywhere near the Top 100. He probably isn't in the top 200.

Not in the top 200, are you serious? I agree he blew hot and cold but his record against some of the greatest fighters is impressive.

200 seems like a lot, but when you consider the tens of thousands of fighters through history, it really isn't. I made a lit of the 100 a while back, and about 50 more than I didn't list. There is no way that I could put him ahead of any of them.

There are little more than 200 guys in the Hall of Fame. Roughly 80% are clearly better than Zivic, with some others roughly even. There are also some guys that aren't in the Hall of Fame that were better.

He did have some huge wins, no question about it. However, he also had a huge amounts of losses to guys that are nowhere close to the top 100 or 200.

You have to count the bad losses against them as well as the big wins for him.

If you can beat Burley, Booker and LaMotta you deserve off-nights and I think you're in the top 100 for sure.

How many off nights do deserve? 5, 10, 15?
Zivic had 64 losses. His career record was just 159-64-9. He won less than 70% of his fights. Of course when you fight that frequently, you can't always be near your best and you are going to have the occasional off night. However, at a certain point, we have to stop making excuses for the guy.

In 1935-1936 for example, he lost 8 straight fights. 5 of the opponents were not even in the top 10.
Throughout his career, he lost to guys that simply were not that good. This happened over and over.

If you pick many of his losses they were points decision in the hometown fighters backyard. Hometown decision were common place.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

200 seems like a lot, but when you consider the tens of thousands of fighters through history, it really isn't. I made a lit of the 100 a while back, and about 50 more than I didn't list. There is no way that I could put him ahead of any of them.

When you say top 200 do you mean all weight divisions or just his division?

I was referring to all weights; flyweights, welterweights, heavyweights, all of them.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How many off nights do deserve? 5, 10, 15?
Zivic had 64 losses. His career record was just 159-64-9. He won less than 70% of his fights. Of course when you fight that frequently, you can't always be near your best and you are going to have the occasional off night. However, at a certain point, we have to stop making excuses for the guy.

In 1935-1936 for example, he lost 8 straight fights. 5 of the opponents were not even in the top 10.
Throughout his career, he lost to guys that simply were not that good. This happened over and over.

Nobody is making excuses. What's clear is that he was able to beat many of the greatest fighters who ever lived. 70% is just a number. You can't force your world view and dismiss a guy who beat arguably the greatest ever fighter twice and stopping him. Maybe this guy just broke your system... Or maybe you need to put an asterisk next to him, or something...

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How many off nights do deserve? 5, 10, 15?
Zivic had 64 losses. His career record was just 159-64-9. He won less than 70% of his fights. Of course when you fight that frequently, you can't always be near your best and you are going to have the occasional off night. However, at a certain point, we have to stop making excuses for the guy.

In 1935-1936 for example, he lost 8 straight fights. 5 of the opponents were not even in the top 10.
Throughout his career, he lost to guys that simply were not that good. This happened over and over.

Nobody is making excuses. What's clear is that he was able to beat many of the greatest fighters who ever lived. 70% is just a number. You can't force your world view and dismiss a guy who beat arguably the greatest ever fighter twice and stopping him. Maybe this guy just broke your system... Or maybe you need to put an asterisk next to him, or something...

Totally. He beat Burley, Armstrong & LaMotta & someone wants to play the fvcking stats game?

Ludicrous. Anybody who has grown up watching boxing & has half a brain should surely recognise it's not the numbers on your record, it's who you could beat (or it used to be, before stupid fvcking shite like quoting percentages of fighter's records as if it were anything other than a meaningless bullshit yardstick applied to a sport where it doesn't belong so fucktards can safely assimilate it into the dead morass of statistic-obsessed minutiae that clogs all other sports).

Massive generalisation, but I have only encountered this tendency in Americans. I find it quite, quite distasteful. It belongs with Jim Lampley & Compubox & those fvcking videogame "where the punch landed" graphics, as far away from me as fvcking possible.

Datsue wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:How many off nights do deserve? 5, 10, 15?
Zivic had 64 losses. His career record was just 159-64-9. He won less than 70% of his fights. Of course when you fight that frequently, you can't always be near your best and you are going to have the occasional off night. However, at a certain point, we have to stop making excuses for the guy.

In 1935-1936 for example, he lost 8 straight fights. 5 of the opponents were not even in the top 10.
Throughout his career, he lost to guys that simply were not that good. This happened over and over.

Nobody is making excuses. What's clear is that he was able to beat many of the greatest fighters who ever lived. 70% is just a number. You can't force your world view and dismiss a guy who beat arguably the greatest ever fighter twice and stopping him. Maybe this guy just broke your system... Or maybe you need to put an asterisk next to him, or something...

Totally. He beat Burley, Armstrong & LaMotta & someone wants to play the fvcking stats game?

Ludicrous. Anybody who has grown up watching boxing & has half a brain should surely recognise it's not the numbers on your record, it's who you could beat (or it used to be, before stupid fvcking shite like quoting percentages of fighter's records as if it were anything other than a meaningless bullshit yardstick applied to a sport where it doesn't belong so fucktards can safely assimilate it into the dead morass of statistic-obsessed minutiae that clogs all other sports).

Massive generalisation, but I have only encountered this tendency in Americans. I find it quite, quite distasteful. It belongs with Jim Lampley & Compubox & those fvcking videogame "where the punch landed" graphics, as far away from me as fvcking possible.

Datsue, I just hope they never let you near the nuke button!!!

I agree though. What matters is who you could beat.

What matters equally is your losses (the amount, who they were to, how close they were, and the stages of the fighter's careers.)

Consistency counts. Sometimes you also can learn more from a fighter's losses than his wins.

It's ridiculas to not consider losses for many reasons.
If you don't, you have to come to some absurd conclusions.
-It would mean that if fighter A is 1-0 vs Fighter B, that is no better than Fighter C being only 1-4 vs fighter B.

-How about all of the fighters that beat Zivic? They must be all great too. Remember their losses don't count either, and they beat Zivic.
The legendary Rueben Shank beat Zivic and LaMotta. Where do we put Shank on the pantheon of greats?

-How about Johnnie Risko? His career record was 69-46-6. He beat 7 Hall of Famers, including Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, George Godfrey, and Tommy Loughran twice. He also beat top heavyweights Ernie Schaaf and Uzcudun.
Doesn't that make Risko one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time? One of the top 100 fighters of all time? If not, he would have to be pretty close.

-If we don't count Zivic's losses, then he should probably be in the Top 10 fighters of all time, or at least very close. His list of major wins is certainly better than Willie Pep, Carlos Monzon, Roberto Duran, Jimmy Wilde etc.

Rather than making knee-jerk reactions and only considering a fighter's big wins, we need to look at other factors as well. You have to weigh the good with the bad.

So you'd rather reward fighters who take no risks? Being 1-4 should ALWAYS beat being 0-0.

You can't reduce it to an equation. That's what Boxrec have done. And, yes, it's indicative, and a bit of fun, but far from conclusive.

Defeats are interesting. And yes in a straight comparison its the best there is.

How many times exactly did Zivic need to beat Armstrong in world title fights to atone for dropping a 6 round decision 2 weeks after his last fight?

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The legendary Rueben Shank beat Zivic and LaMotta. Where do we put Shank on the pantheon of greats?

He never fought LaMotta, do you mean Henry Armstrong? Shank was actually a decent fighter, beat the tough Artie Levine as well. His record is also deceiving as most of his losses were at the end of his career when he fought former middleweight champ Fred Apostoli twice. Zivic did beat him in the rematch.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The legendary Rueben Shank beat Zivic and LaMotta. Where do we put Shank on the pantheon of greats?

He never fought LaMotta, do you mean Henry Armstrong? Shank was actually a decent fighter, beat the tough Artie Levine as well. His record is also deceiving as most of his losses were at the end of his career when he fought former middleweight champ Fred Apostoli twice. Zivic did beat him in the rematch.

Yes, I meant Armstrong. Sorry about that.

Ezzard wrote:So you'd rather reward fighters who take no risks? Being 1-4 should ALWAYS beat being 0-0.

You can't reduce it to an equation. That's what Boxrec have done. And, yes, it's indicative, and a bit of fun, but far from conclusive.

Defeats are interesting. And yes in a straight comparison its the best there is.

How many times exactly did Zivic need to beat Armstrong in world title fights to atone for dropping a 6 round decision 2 weeks after his last fight?

No, I would not rather reward a fight who never takes risks. Not what I am saying at all.
1-4 against a great fighter is more impressive than 0-0 vs a great fighter; I agree.
And 1-0 vs a great fighter is always better than 1-4.
And 3-0 vs a mediocre fighter is better than 3-2. In your way of thinking it would be the same because the two losses don't count; that is just silly. It's harder to beat someone 3 out of 3 than it is 3 out of 5.
Wins count; losses count. You should not just sweep losses under the rug as if they never happened.

Zivic's wins over Armstrong helps his case. However, had he won the fight you are referring to, his case would be even better.

Of course you can't make an exact mathematical equation to rate someone's career accurately. However, you have to consider the bad stuff as well as the good.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I was referring to all weights; flyweights, welterweights, heavyweights, all of them.

When you said he wouldn't be in your top 200 (plus there would be at least another 50 ahead of him), I originally thought you meant top 200 welterweights ever, my bad.

However if you stuck to the 8 original weight divisions and created a top 25 of each division you would have a list of 200 fighters. Zivic has a great case for being in a top 25 best welterweights list of all time.

So where would you rate Zivic in the overall welterweight division rankings?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Zivic is very hard to rate. As mentioned he had several really good wins. However, he also had a lot of losses; many of them to mediocre fighters.
Because he had so many losses, he isn't anywhere near the Top 100. He probably isn't in the top 200.

Easily top 100 . . what are you smoking?

Easily in the Top 100? Ever make a top 100 list? There are dozens of really good fighters that you have to leave out.

Look at the list below:

Tony Herrara
George Salvadore
Billy Celebron
Chuck Woods
Gene Buffalo
Tommy Bland
Kenny LaSalle
Johnny Barbara

How many of them belong in the Top 100? They all beat Zivic. There are several others not much better that I could list. And I am not talking about fights real early in his career or when he got old.

He has some great wins, no question about it. He also has quite a few embarrassing losses. Of course fighting that often, you can't always be at your best. However, he has a huge amount. He is an extreme example of a hot and cold fighter.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
.

So where do you rank him in the welterweight division?

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I was referring to all weights; flyweights, welterweights, heavyweights, all of them.

When you said he wouldn't be in your top 200 (plus there would be at least another 50 ahead of him), I originally thought you meant top 200 welterweights ever, my bad.

However if you stuck to the 8 original weight divisions and created a top 25 of each division you would have a list of 200 fighters. Zivic has a great case for being in a top 25 best welterweights list of all time.

So where would you rate Zivic in the overall welterweight division rankings?

First, I want to clarify something.I said that I had made a top 100 list, had another 50 that didn't make it that are clearly better. I don't think he would quite make the top 200; but it's arguable. There are many guys that are roughly even.

I have him as my #24 welterweight. (He certainly could be a little higher or lower)
Yes if you multiplied that by 8, Zivic would just make it. However, there are guys that I don't have ranked in the tradtional 8 weight classes that were better than Zivic (Wilfredo Gomez, Mike McCallum, Dulio Loi, Nicloino Loi etc.)
I have never made a list up to 200; but I am doubtful that Zivic would quite make it.
I really would have no major disagreement with someone that does have him in the top 200. There are obviously a lot of close calls.

However, I don't think he is in the top 100. I think there are two things at work here would make people think that he should be.

1.They just look at all of his big wins. However, you have to dig deeper and look at his whole career, warts and all.
2. I don't think people realize how good you have to be to deserve to be in the top 100. 100 sounds like a huge number. However, if you stop and consider that we are considering every weight class, and over 120 years of boxing, then 100 is not really a big number at all. I don't mean to rip Zivic by saying he wasn't one of the top 100; he was a very good fighter.

zivic for me scrapes into the top 50 of all time - he had a terrible falling off of quality towards the end of his career, one of the worst of a notable champ but when it really mattered and against some of the best fighters of all, he proved himself.
zivic was a real master of the ring and as tough as they come.

Alp, are you gonna be marking JMM down by the time he finishes?

& if he loses to Alvarado, is that gonna affect the way that future generations see him, you think?

What about Erik Morales? He's lost to David Diaz, FFS, not mention Zahir Cunting Raheem.

Does Holyfield losing to Valuev mean he's no longer to be regarded as being a great heavyweight?

I hope you see what I am getting at here. I really don't hold with this bullshit wannabe-objective "I've got a formula & I STICK to it!" method of rating old-timers that a lot of otherwise seemingly-sane dudes get obsessed with.

Watch what you can, read what you can. If you've seen half a dozen fighters & they are Very Bad Men, & some other brother beat some of them--even if he lost to some of them or indeed a group of other, less-storied dudes, it seems completely mental to me to dis the fella, & even more insane to back up your arguments with statistics.

Boxing isn't--despite what modern American TV has tried to do to it--a statistic derived sport. It cannot be best expressed in statistics. What is most important is qualitative, not quantitative. It has texture. It drips with human meaning. Not numbers.

Having these bizarre hard & fast rules that enable you to make sweeping generalisations about a sport of human moments, of increments, of thousands of an inch... Means you deaden the actual & physical within a cocoon of empty stats-obsessed minutiae.

It's very very sad, & very single-male.

I'm sure you know all this, & I'm probably tilting at windmills here. But just FYI.