**** Tiger-- What are your thoughts about him

[Bodyshot3]

The guy literally fought his way through to the A-Z of available contenders and champions in his career and it really is a record that inspires a lot of admiration and respect.

Interesting to see just how frequently the top fighters fought and the sheer length of their rivalries.....Tiger seems to have spent a large part of his career going head-to-head with the 'Fullmer clan' or Giardello.

He'd had a hell of a career even before crossing over to the US...beating the best British fighters and being an honorary Liverpudlian.

[IronDanHamza]

What about Fitzsimmons - does he also have a better MW resume than Hopkins?

He has by far the best win, over Dempsey.

It's tricky from there.

[Felix25]

Sorry about re-opening this thread after more than a week... but I need to ask you guys about something.

Since no one has commented on IronDans last post I presume the other posters here agree that Fitzsimmons win over Dempsey indeed *****s anything Hopkins has done at MW. Which I have a hard time understanding!

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of boxing history is rather limited - but after having had a look at Dempsey on BoxRec Im very confused! I know he went into the Fitzsimmons fight as defending middleweight champion... but his record looks so "thin" that its difficult to see how beating him is particularly noteworthy!

So do you guys really feel that Fitz defeating Dempsey is a better ("by far"!) result than Hopkins win over (for example) Trinidad? And if so - why? What am I missing here??

[Humean]

Sorry about re-opening this thread after more than a week... but I need to ask you guys about something.

Since no one has commented on IronDans last post I presume the other posters here agree that Fitzsimmons win over Dempsey indeed *****s anything Hopkins has done at MW. Which I have a hard time understanding!

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of boxing history is rather limited - but after having had a look at Dempsey on BoxRec Im very confused! I know he went into the Fitzsimmons fight as defending middleweight champion... but his record looks so "thin" that its difficult to see how beating him is particularly noteworthy!

So do you guys really feel that Fitz defeating Dempsey is a better ("by far"!) result than Hopkins win over (for example) Trinidad? And if so - why? What am I missing here??

I certainly don't think Fitzsimmons' win over Nonpareil Jack Dempsey is better than all of Hopkins wins. In fact I don't think it is better than any of Hopkins' 'world level' fights. Personally I think comparing Fitzsimmons and Hopkins is a bit like comparing the Model T with the Bugatti Veyron. You might find the Model T more interesting, possibly even more stylish depending on your tastes but in a drag race there is no competition.

[Welsh Jon]

Sorry about re-opening this thread after more than a week... but I need to ask you guys about something.

Since no one has commented on IronDans last post I presume the other posters here agree that Fitzsimmons win over Dempsey indeed *****s anything Hopkins has done at MW. Which I have a hard time understanding!

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of boxing history is rather limited - but after having had a look at Dempsey on BoxRec Im very confused! I know he went into the Fitzsimmons fight as defending middleweight champion... but his record looks so "thin" that its difficult to see how beating him is particularly noteworthy!

So do you guys really feel that Fitz defeating Dempsey is a better ("by far"!) result than Hopkins win over (for example) Trinidad? And if so - why? What am I missing here??

Dempsey's record does not look that impressive on paper, but in his era he was considered not just the best middleweight in the world, but the best boxer in the world. I guess you could say he was the pound for pound number 1 although that phrase hadn't been coined yet. Dempsey was a boxer whose reputation, influence and legacy far surpasses his record.

A win over Dempsey alone does not make Fitz a top 5 middleweight though. It is the fact that he beat the eras top heavyweights while still weighing in at middleweight that puts him among the greats.

[Humean]

Dempsey's record does not look that impressive on paper, but in his era he was considered not just the best middleweight in the world, but the best boxer in the world. I guess you could say he was the pound for pound number 1 although that phrase hadn't been coined yet. Dempsey was a boxer whose reputation, influence and legacy far surpasses his record.

A win over Dempsey alone does not make Fitz a top 5 middleweight though. It is the fact that he beat the eras top heavyweights while still weighing in at middleweight that puts him among the greats.

The boxing world in the 1880s and 1890s basically only comprised the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, and Australia with only really two areas where 'world' 'recognition' resided, the US (through reputation) and UK (through reputation and then from 1891 from the National Sporting Club). Boxing was also largely an 'Irish' sport for various cultural/social reasons.

I'm not sure if you can really say that Fitzsimmons did actually defeat any of the top heavyweights whilst weighing in as a middleweight. The closest he got to that was beating Maher (180) and Corbett (184) whilst weighing in at 165 and 167 respectively. Unless you mean some of the other heavyweight contenders of the day that he defeated? Surely those wins cannot count for much in the grand scheme of things.