Bob Fitzsimmons vs Hasim Ramhan

Xept that he was beaten . He was greater than Schmelling and "even" than Louis , maybe , I give u dis much . Probably greater than Jeffries , Johnson as well , I believe .

 

Fitz was an amazing fighter but let's get real ... it's beyond how he did v.s. Jeffries because Rachman could and did box well as we saw twice v.s. Tua .. I don't see this going long or well for Fitz.

 

I don't think Fitz could headbutt as hard as Toney... Which is why the fight you're refering to was declared a no contest.

And Toney beats Fitz, also.

 

Rahman by very early knockout. Fitz died in 1917. Oh okay, even so I think Rahman would be a mismatch for Fitz in his prime. I believe he only weighed about 170lbs. tops. Rahman is a solid 230 to 240 when in shape.

 

What? The article is a fine one about Fitzsimmons unprecedented accomplishments against larger men -accomplishments that have not been matched since. Would u like it beta if it red like dis?

Fitzsimmons was a special fighter who hit very hard and had serious skill. I don't think his accomplishments against larger men should be so easily dismissed.

 

A middleweight wobbled the mighty Rahman. That's a fact.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9-Azxh-Rag[/ame]

I think Rahman's wobbly legs wobbles your premise too.

You assume that the weight of a man somehow injects his chin with concrete. The fact is the chin is a nerve center and while the size of the neck can act as a shock absorber, it doesn't always. Ask Elmer Ray -all 210 lbs of him- who was dropped by a junior middleweight named Charley Burley. Or JD Turner, who woke up in the dressing room. He was 220. How about Willard -who had the same dimensions of Wlad- ? Dempsey was 187 if that. How about Mickey Walker and De Kuh? Moore was a chubby light heavy, and look what he was doing to the big boys.

If you insist on a more modern giant killer (though the breed as you know is extinct not because it was a myth but because of weight divisions' amended rules/practices), try thinking about Roy Jones. Although I am utterly convinced that he was on roids when he fought Ruiz, do you have any doubt that he could have knocked him out anyway had he fought aggressively and landed a clean one?

I sure as hell don't. There are small guys who can muster the force to stop big men (force isn't all mass, man, it's speed of impact and rotation or otherwise trauma of the target's brain). They, I'd admit, are special. But middleweights? Man, middleweights possess the perfect combination of speed and power and they wreck heavys in gyms plenty.

There are lots of reasons why it is rarer now, but most of those reasons have nothing at all to do with the -size- of the target. Sh*t, that helps.

 

Of course a middleweight can hurt a heavyweight. There's a lot more to power than simple mass. Time Lincecum at 5'9" and 170 lbs can throw as hard as Matt Cain who's 6'3" & 230. But since i'm doing baseball metaphors Fitzsimmons is a brilliant dead ball era player like Ty Cobb and Rahman is a solid contemporary all star. Fitz is infinitely greater but perhaps not better.

 

Pure delusional clap trap.

An old ass Rahman takes a step backward from a roided up Toney after shot to the back of the head and it's proof that a spindly legged, light heavy from ancient times would definitively KO a prime Rahman. Awesome selective evidence.

And I am sure that Fitz punched harder than Tua, with whom Rahman lasted 22 rounds and only got KO'd due to a defenseless punch after the 9th in the first fight.

Where are the 170 pound power punching heavyweights today? They don't exist. AND if they did, they sure as hell would launch into the heavy ranks rather than toil against barely known fighters at light heavy.

And I know all about middles sparring with heavies in the gym, as I was stupid enough to do that twice and thought the whole weight of the gym of coming down on my head. Those middles wouldn't dare sign a fight with heavies unless it was for Fort Knox.

 

When was the last time a middleweight fought a heavyweight? Was it Burley.

 

I agree with Seamus on this one. The heavyweight scene of Fitszimmons day was a vastly different one from Rachman's. Almost all of the HW's from Bob's era wouldn't be HW's today. Even Jeffries would be a smallish to average sized HW today. I find it hard to imagine someone Fitszimmons size competing in today's HW division. There just weren't as many good big men back then as there would be later on. Now I'm not saying that Rachman was a world beater by any stretch of the imagination but there does come a point where size does matter. Relatively speaking, Fitz was a better fighter for what he accomplished in his own time but comparitively speaking, Rachman would have too much in the way of size and power. The match wouldn't even be sanctioned today because Fitz wouldn't qualify as a HW by todays standards. He was a super middleweight to light heavyweight in size. Imagine putting him in the ring against the likes of Lewis, both Klitschko brothers, Holyfield and Tyson....or Rachman for that matter and it doesn't paint a pretty picture in my mind.I don't necessarily subscribe to the belief that size is everything but we have to be realistic and not let nostalgia cloud our better judgement.

 

There are exceptions to every rule...Years ago there were no mental barriers placed on MWs and light heavyweights going against slower more cumberson heavyweights... A few examples...
Bob Fitzimmons hurt or kod bigger men as Peter Maher, Tom Sharkey,Gus Ruhlin, Ed Dunkhorst, Jim Jeffries, etc.Fitz had amazing knowledge and timing, as was the idol of Joe Gans...
Jack Dillon, was a sawed off shotgun who upset heavyweights of his time' thus his nickname Jack the Giant killer...
Sam Langford only about 170 lbs at his best kod or dropped heavyweights of his time, who feared him for good reason...
Mickey Walker at 5 ft7",feared no heavyweight and tackled a good larger Bearcat Wright and beating him,spotting Wright about 55 pounds.
Walker Beat Johnny Risko, King Levinsky,Paolino Uzcudun the Basque who kod Harry Wills and was as STRONG as any heavyweight today...Walker also drew with a PRIME Jack Sharkey who outweighed Mickey by 25 pounds,
so there were smaller fighters who took on much bigger men then would be allowed today...Finally ,size doesn't make you faster, just bigger...
Yes they are bigger today, but not necessarily better as a whole. Just look at today's heavyweights and compare them with some previous era's of heavyweights...I still insist that a Jack Johnson, a Jack Dempsey, a Joe Louis,all up to 200 pounds were big enough, strong enough and tough enough to handle the freight trains of this era...What nature gives a fighter
in bulk, it takes away in dexterity, and stamina...And yes there were smaller fighters who learned to adapt and were successful against the big boys in their time, and would most likely do so today...

 

i started reading it and it was about Nonpareil Jack Dempsey until i got tired .
If there were a few more of Fitzsimmons' opponents there that got d same amount of emphasis , then i c where d length of that text comes from .
And it even did not forget mentioning Dempsey getting KOd by a man other than Fitzsimmons .
Larger men is 1 thing , but 80 lbs larger men is another .
I think Sam Langford accomplished more since , and without ducking any1 . Corbett wasn't that large , He was a smaller man than Chad Dawson . And Jeffries KOd Fitz , and Fitz actually was bigger than most of his "quality" opponents that he did manage 2 win against .

Against ? what accomplishment vs larger men ? a KO over Corbett ?
Tyson stopped Tyrrell Biggs , Jerry Quarry KOd Mac Foster , Langford stopped Harry Wills and a few more , Jorge Castro had his share , former 2 time lightweight titlist Dingaan Thobela KOd Glenn Catley 2 gain a belt at supermiddleweight and I guess i could find more .

 

Michael Moorer was probably the last one to fit that description.

 

1. Rahman was past it here, but granted he isn't the most durable

2. Toney was not a middleweight, anymore than Jack Dempsey or Ezzard Charles were middleweights when fighting at heavyweight.

3. Size and strength is always an issue in boxing. People think size in boxing is all about power, it's much more than that, it's being able to move people with your jab, push them around, lay on them and tire them, push them off balance. That been said, there's a reason KO power dries up when moving up in weight, it's harder to dent a bigger stronger man's chin. The smaller man will also be less durable, he own't have the strength in him to suck up the shots

4. The 1 comparison we have of Fitz facing a decent big man was Jeffries. Guess what size is the reason Jeffries beat Fitz, Fitz couldn't have an impact, couldn't handle being pushed around and couldn't take Jeffries punches

5. It's not just about size, it's about if the semi-pro era has the skillset to compete today, that's an issue of contention. Look at Fitz stances, it looks very amateurish, although most amateurs would have such technically limitations ironed out of their game early on

6. Despite his limitations we're not talking about an average heavyweight here. As a P4P package Rahman maybe superior to Fitz

215>170