Bob Fitzsimmons vs Joe Frazier

Exactly. I think I posted these same sentiments in another Fitz thread. And I still hold Fitz in the absolute stratosphere as afar as rankings. It's just, in that sense, I try to keep judgments based only in relation to a fighter's contemporaries.

 

It is understandable why many view Frazier as the destroyer but it would be silly to dismiss Fitzsimmons record against the big boys.

Whatever may be said of Bob's supposedly primordial conduct, about those fabled moves which flicker insipidly before the kinetoscope, he remains one of the rings greatest professors on the point of making a man cataleptic. It really is a case of putting a bit more faith in the past and not doubting the capacity to fight of a man who triples Frazier in terms of experience.

Fitzsimmons did not just have experience though, he has a record that swears by his fists. Not to insinuate the direct opposite, but really, for a board that delights in histories particulars, some of the input is verily steeped in the realm of blasé.

It would be a tough fight, no doubt. Jeffries overcame Fitzsimmons but that's because he was not only tough, but quite the circumspect fighter, certainly nothing like the perpetual swarming of Joe. If Frazier is too contemptuous of his slighter opponent he could eat something disagreeable to his nervous system.

Fitzsimmons had the ability to turn a mistake into a disaster, but Ted Spoon would favour a twenty-seven year old Frazier to dust himself off and make his power groove pay dividends as the bout slips into the ninth.

 

Similar to Frazier-Foster, but just one round in length.

 

I don't doubt Fitz' power, although I seriously disagree with him being in the realm of Foreman-level power... He was a hitter to be sure.


I do doubt his ability to cope with Frazier, or any other high-level HW.

Also, as Ted Spoon pointed out, has thrice the experience as Frazier... He then cites Jeffries, who Frazier has thrice the experience of himself... So this goes out the window, as Fitz was beaten by a man with precious little experience.

All I'm saying is that if he tries to fight Frazier like I see him fight Corbett or in any other short films, with his flailing and leaning, arms way out, terribly off balance, etc., he'll be in big trouble. Big trouble.

His record and lore speaks for itself, but I believe his devastating effects were against poor opposition. I'm sure I'll get corrected on this, but that's my feeling.

I've known guys who have serious, natural power. They can't box, and can't really fight, but they can hit. That's about where I'd put Fitz. He could punch, and when he fought guys with no defense, it yielded eye-opening results.

 

Frazier in impressive fashion.

 

It would look like Frazier vs Foster.

 

Was Jeffries a harder hitter than Frazier? :think

 

The size and age disparity between Fitz and Jeffries was pretty big, btw. And Jeffries appeared to be a very durable man in his prime, so there you go. Why would Fitz fight Frazier like Corbett, trying to set traps? He wouldn't need to, Frazier would bring the fight to him in a manner much more like a Sharkey, Jeffries or Ruhlin with better skills. All of whom he performed admirably or had conclusive victories against despite many absurd disadvantages of weight and ring freshness.

No triple crown champion has poor opposition. What you're saying is "boxing sucked until x set date" which doesn't make much sense. cross comparisons are nigh meaningless when rules, matchmaking, training, and sports science change with every decade.

I won't even get into the stupidity of suggesting that boxers with that many rounds and small gloves had 'no defense'.

As for Fitzsimmons being an unskilled hitter.... Nonsense. Gans whom even people on this board think was a technically very modern and skilled fighter learned everything from Fitz. Kid McCoy actually took a job as a dishwasher to move up to a sparring partner for this man so he could learn his craft.

Let me put it in modern terms: moving fitz to the 50's. What he essentially did was beat Ray Robinson(faded Nonpareil Dempsey), move up to heavy and beat Walcott(Corbett), then move back down to LHW and beat Harold Johnson(Jack O' Brien) while he was near 40. That is freakish, un****ablewith greatness that cannot be explained by physical ability alone.



I don't understand why people post about Fitzsimmons when they don't know **** all about the man. At least read a general article about him somewhere....

 

I did not say that at all. You're drawing a general conclusion. I said I'm not impressed with Fitz himself, not the era as a whole... I implied his opposition was questionable, yes, but you can say that about many greats who had impressive KO's. Many times, impressive KO's are against poor opposition. That's a fact.



I also never professed to know "**** all" about him; I'm going off of what I've seen and what I know (little).


I don't need to be his biographer to have an opinion.

 

That still makes jack **** for sense when it was in every single division. The only marquee name he was missing from 160+ was Peter Jackson. And he beat the winner of Jackson-Corbett in a single punch.

Do i look like Fitzsimmons' biographer or a serious boxing researcher to you? No. Absolutely not. But I really did take objection to your assertion that Fitz was just some guy with a lot of power and no skills. That's just wrong, completely. You're entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to point out where you might be wrong.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=17966&more=1

There's a good reference point.

 

Thanks, I'm not above being wrong, and I gain alot from reading on this forum.

I'm not impressed with him. I honestly don't understand how he could accomplish what he did looking like that in the ring... It's a real problem for logic itself. I was speculating reasons for this in my previous posts as possible reasons why that may be the case.

I've seen enough pre-modern fighters to know that skills were around since gloved boxing (and before), and after seeing some of those fighters on film, there's no mystery or question why they're great or accomplished what they did. That's why Fitz is such an aberration to me. What I see on film doesn't align with the accomplishments unless that was the most skill that was around back then, which I doubt.

 

Well, when you watch Fitz-Corbett.... It's like a really feinty-clinchy version of Moore vs. Charles or something. When they hit they hit hard but that isn't an exciting fight until the KO really. And of course it's night impossible to see wtf is going on.

Nobody understood why Fitzsimmons did what he did. Era regardless he was a balding skinny ginger with a gigantic upper body and stick legs. He looks ridiculous

 

Suggesting that this would be like Frazier Foster is the esence of a bad prediction, because it is not backed up by a single real world prescedent in either fighters career.

There is nothing in any of Fitzsimmons fights to suggest that he would be likley to get overwhelmed in two rounds by anybody.

There is nothing in Frazier's career to suggest that he would be likley to overwhelm a tested world level heavyweight in two rounds.

The critical difference between Fitzsimmons and Foster is that Foster never beat a world level oponent over 175lbs.

 

Joe Frazier was responsible for a few catalepsies in his time, as well.

As impressive as Mr. Fitz's best wins were, I sure see a plurality of less-than-established nemeses on his ledger, from which I conclude there was a distinct lack of discouraging opposition to be found for the milling cove.

 

To be fair, it is hard to be sure how good or bad some of these fighters were.