Fritizie Zivic: how good was he?

[Ambling Alp II]

He has always been a fascinating case. Fought well over 200 fights. Often had fights just weeks or or even days between fights.
The big question: How good was he?

He beat Henry Armstrong twice, also Charlie Burley, Sammy Angott, and Jake LaMotta. If all you had to look at was this, he would be considered one of the greatest fighters of all time.

He did lose to greats like Armstrong, Burley (2x) LaMotta (3x) Robinson (2x). Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, and Bob Montgomery.
Obviously, these are to great fighters. At this point, you would have to consider him a great fighter.
He also lost to several good but not great fighters: Jimmy Leto, Lew Jenkins, Joey Ferrando (2x) Eddie Cool, Cleo Locatelli, Mike Kaplan, Freddie Cochrane, Tony Motisi, Norman Rubio, Sheik Rangel, Jose Basora, Ralph Zarelli, Rueben Shank, Tommy Bell, and Johnny Jadick.
So maybe he was not that good?

To his credit he beat good fighters such as Harry Dublinsky, a young Eddie Booker, Mike Kaplan, Tony Martelano, Al “Bummy” Davis, Izzy Jannazzo, Norman rubio, and Billy Arnold.

So a several wins over great fighters and a lot of wins over good ones. And a lot of losses. He also lost to: Tony Herrera, George Salvadore, Billy Belebron, Chuck Woods, Gene Buffalo, Tommy Bland, Kenny LaSalle, Johnny Barbara, and Tony Roman.
An awful lot to chew on. So how good was he?

[Chuck1052]

A very good case can be made that Fritzie Zivic was a great fighter. When motivated and focused, he was a handful even when facing the best fighters with his ring savvy and fine boxing skills. It appears that Zivic matched up best with the aggressive fighters such as Jake LaMotta and Henry Armstrong. Yes, it is true that he was infuriatingly inconsistent, resulting in him losing 65 bouts during his career. But Zivic faced good fighters on a constant basis, often beat fighters in rematches after losing to them, was in a lot of close bouts (which included many bouts that he lost) and was stopped only four times despite having many losses.

There is some speculation about how Zivic would have matched up with Rocky Graziano. In four bouts, Zivic did well while fighting Jake LaMotta, who was far younger, bigger and stronger. Graziano certainly would not have matched up well with LaMotta, the latter being far bigger, much stronger and more skillful in addition to being very durable and aggressive. Unlike Graziano, LaMotta faced good fighters on an astoundingly consistent basis. My feeling that Graziano would not match up well with Zivic, especially when the latter did well while facing LaMotta.

- Chuck Johnston

[goose 5]

Suppose Zivic wasn't allowed to get away with his dirty tactics, then how great/ good would he have been ? Today's refs would never allow such tactics and it's terrible that Zivic was celebrated for them in his day.

[asmund]

Ill answer for 90+ percent on this site.

He would beat any of the current lightweights/welterweights in his prime

[gilgamesh]

A real good fighter. Would probably get DQ'd multiple times, and possibly even stripped of his license in the modern era.

I figure he'd have been like he was in his own time. A good fighter, that was able to win some big fights, and he'd lose a lot of others.

[Alguiffer]

When talking boxing story my Father use to call him "Fivic" and always said he was "tough as nails".

[Ambling Alp II]

Should he be in the Hall of Fame?
How about some names of guys who is roughly even with (before or after his time.)

[Onetimeonly]

Cocoa kid?

[Ambling Alp II]

That is an interesting comparison. Cocoa Kid fought almost as frequently as Zivic. Had some ups and downs as well. They have several common opponents. Would have to really dig through his career as well.

[Onetimeonly]

That is an interesting comparison. Cocoa Kid fought almost as frequently as Zivic. Had some ups and downs as well. They have several common opponents. Would have to really dig through his career as well.

Yeah, I didn't do that. First one that came to mind.

[harrygreb]

zivic was undoubtedly a true great. in his prime he was a handful for any fighter in his weight class. very very skilled and had ring smarts most fighters can only dream about. some of them were on the dark side but he was always thinking creatively and needs to be accepted as an all time great light middle. a well written biography would bring fritzie back into the frame in fight fans consciousness. the amount of losses he had were much to do with his being seen as a great learning curve for up and coming young pugs when he had declined. he could teach you a bunch of ring essentials whilst losing a decision and not threatening to knock you out. it didn't matter to zivic - he knew how good he was and wanted to make a few bucks in those fights towards the end of his career...maybe that downward career tail is a bit long but nevertheless fritzie zivic is one of the greats.

[Ambling Alp II]

Playing the devils advocate, how did he lose many fights?

Certainly to a certain extent it can be attributed him to fighting so often and on short notice. But still, that is an awful lot of losses.

[margaret thatcher]

Sh!t ya, let's play Devil's advocate, some dudes be getting mocked for a loss or two or three, even from people who say losses arent a big deal, well this flat nosed mofo had 65

[Ambling Alp II]

He has a career that is not comparable to many other fighters.
If a guy is say 28-2 against stiffs and looked unimpressive the two times he fought someone decent, he probably is not that good.
Zivic has over 230 fights. He averaged over a fight a month. Sometimes he had a loss just a few days after his previous fight. When taking that into consideration a particular loss might not be that bad.
He had a many wins over great fighters. Trying to make sense of it all.

[Onetimeonly]

How about angott or mandell?

[Ambling Alp II]

Angott was not the most consistent guy, but he was less likely to lose to a lesser fighter than Zivic. He has some big wins (Montgomery, Williams, Pep) and some nice ones.
I would rate Angott higher than Zivic.

Mandell is a little more tricky, because a lot depends on how much value you give no-decisions. But like Angott, he was not the most consistent guy but more consistent than Zivic. They simply didn't lose as often (even when taking into consideration often Zivic fought) and had some big wins.
I would also rate Mandell higher than Zivic.

Cocoa Kid was slightly more consistent than Zivic but did beat quite as good of overall competition as Zivic. I would rate Coca Kid and Zivic about even.

[Cojimar 1946]

One thing impressive about that era is how many quality opponents guys would face in a short period of time.

Looking at Jack Chase's resume for example he had more fights against quality opponents in one year than some fighters have in their entire careers.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is amazing. In the 1930s and 1940s in particular, guys just fought who was available. Many guys fought on at least a monthly basis. There were plenty of mismatches, but a lot of fights between fighters as well.

If you look at some records, you see a guy fighting a top contender, then a tomato can, then a relative novice, than a guy past his prime, then a guy below his weight class, than a guy above his weight class, then another contender; all within a few months.

[goose 5]

I've been reading the Pittsburgh newspapers from Zivic's era-the guy was an incredible character.Robinson called him a great pure boxer.His title win over Armstrong was filmed and parts were shown on television years later. Zivic was a staunch detractor of Jack Johnson; he was quoted as saying that Clay would beat him using one hand and Louis would knock him out in 1 round.

[harrygreb]

all those losses? these came at the tail end of his career when he wanted as much cash as he could get. so he took lots of fights knowing that to be employed meant losing to up and coming guys. if he wins he doesnt get booked in for those matches so much. its simple - the losses came largely due to economic reasons.

zivic was an all time great - no question

[AntonioMartin]

Should he be in the Hall of Fame?
How about some names of guys who is roughly even with (before or after his time.)

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/induct ... zivic.html
He is in the IBHOF..otherwise id be writing letters about him to them!

[bwu]

I've been reading the Pittsburgh newspapers from Zivic's era-the guy was an incredible character.Robinson called him a great pure boxer.His title win over Armstrong was filmed and parts were shown on television years later. Zivic was a staunch detractor of Jack Johnson; he was quoted as saying that Clay would beat him using one hand and Louis would knock him out in 1 round.

His criticism of Johnson surprises me. There’s a great article floating around on the interwebs, “You Gotta Fight Dirty,” by Zivic, as told to Myron Cope. It’s great reading if you can find the thing.

Anyway, in that Zivic said the three best fighters of all time were Dempsey, Greb and Johnson. He also said they were wonderfully dirty.

[AntonioMartin]

all those losses? these came at the tail end of his career when he wanted as much cash as he could get. so he took lots of fights knowing that to be employed meant losing to up and coming guys. if he wins he doesnt get booked in for those matches so much. its simple - the losses came largely due to economic reasons.

zivic was an all time great - no question

Wonder if he bet against himself also like Antonio Cervantes admitted he did towards the end of his career.

[Ambling Alp II]

all those losses? these came at the tail end of his career when he wanted as much cash as he could get. so he took lots of fights knowing that to be employed meant losing to up and coming guys. if he wins he doesnt get booked in for those matches so much. its simple - the losses came largely due to economic reasons.

zivic was an all time great - no question

That simply is not true. He constantly lost to ordinary fighters during the early part, middle part, and latter part of his career.
So there is a lot of doubt whether he was an all-time great or not.

[BoxBuzz]

all those losses? these came at the tail end of his career when he wanted as much cash as he could get. so he took lots of fights knowing that to be employed meant losing to up and coming guys. if he wins he doesnt get booked in for those matches so much. its simple - the losses came largely due to economic reasons.

zivic was an all time great - no question

That simply is not true. He constantly lost to ordinary fighters during the early part, middle part, and latter part of his career.
So there is a lot of doubt whether he was an all-time great or not.

It's good to see harrygreb actually participating in our conversation.....there is so many questions that his lack of video documentation leaves to the imagination. And in this case.....though he advocates for the greatness of Zivic I find myself in agreement with AA on this matter.

AA.....we may disagree politically, and we may not see eye to eye on Carnera....but I find we often agree when we assess various boxing careers. And that is a great start for peace! Don't you think?

AA We also disagree on Aaron Pryor right? Just remember, I was in Aaron's neighborhood, went to more than a few of his early fights, and am not simply speaking from what I have read, like so many do. I saw him many times....and cheered him on.....and I feel I got an understanding of his potential and his limits. And......If Aaron could fool the public, it's entirely possible Harry Greb could have as well.

Now Fritzie.....well his record speaks for itself. And Zivic and Pryor are two peas in a pod, though one had extraordinary luck....and the other.....well....not quite as much. Neither were bad fighters.....though I often pick on Pryor.....but neither were "best of the best" . IMHO.