Bob Fitzsimmons vs Hasim Ramhan

There's no problem in believing Rahman could win, but it's an opinion that shouldn't rely on statistical references, especially considering the fact that never was there a fighter who rendered weight differentials more obsolete than Fitzsimmons.

Jeffries was not just some frozen beef carcass that bashed into you, he was nimble and did certain things very well. The guy who beat Fitzsimmons in 1899 was quite a bit better than Mr. Rahman.

 

Sure; I made it all up. All 5 examples.

Toney, who was missnamed "Lights Out" even as a middleweight, hit him on the ear. Rahman wobbled and your theory wobbled with it, instead of getting all red in the face, just call it an exception or luck.

You do know that 170 pounders aren't allowed to fight heavyweights anymore aren't you? They'd have to become fat guys ...like Toney.

Again, those middles can't sign to fight heavies unless they get over 200 lbs. That isn't to say that any middle could handle big guys, but it is to say that there are plenty of middles who can hurt big guys. It isn't even debatable.

As to your inability to deal with heavies? Was was that you said about selective evidence?

 

Michael Moorer was on a starvation diet to stay at that weight, and we're not talking about merely skipping Wendy's, but two tiny meals a day. I saw an interview where he said it almost destroyed his relationship with Steward.

It was quite obvious he was a natural 215 pounder looking at his early heavy bouts against Cooper and Holy. Man tits were to follow later.

 

Toney is a middleweight with an eating disorder. Obviously he didn't come into the ring at 159 1/4, but his frame is MW, SMW at best. After that, it's been all-night buffets and attitude. He's a fat guy who can fight.

I agree with most of what you said about skills then and now -I don't even include guys in ranking who hit prime before 1920 because I hold that it was essentially a different sport before the Walker Law. And I am more in Seamus's camp than Janitor's when it comes to the skill sets of the pioneers. You haven't heard me say that Fitz would beat any modern heavy.

My point is that Seamus is wrong about modern heavyweights being unstoppable behemoths who would roll over any middle or light heavy in history. Sure, they have an advantage as you say in terms of size -but if you look at the time when boxing was at its absolute peak in terms of skill, trainers, and activity, you hear a lot of smaller guys swearing that they find heavyweights easier -a lot easier.

Size used to be considered just another variable to deal with. Somewhere along the way we all got infatuated with big things; maybe since 1956 when Godzilla stomped Tokyo. Anyway, too much is made of size for whatever reason. I used to fight heavies in smokers and you learn how to fight them, you learn how to fight them just like you would any style -so what do you do, you aim for the nerve centers. I don't care how thick a guy's neck is, if his chin is sticking out and you clip it with a hook, and you can hit, he's going to do the Charleston at least.

Speed is harder to deal with, don't you think? Advanced technique is even harder. Size means power and strength and sometimes durability, but it also often means they're ponderous, have conditioning problems, and a simplistic style.

Could Fitz beat Rahman? Probably not. But if he lands on Rahman's temple or chin or cheekbone, no one is going to tell me that Rahman wouldn't be hurt.

 

This is not even debatable. Fitz could hurt any man born. My problem is that Rahman usually fades later in fights, gets sloppy, and THEN gets hurt. Up to that point, Fitz would have to endure a very large, ridiculously strong, very hard hitting, two handed heavyweight. I think he would wither before he had the opportunity to land his best stuff. And if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, Rahman was amazingly strong, even by modern standards.

 

and that weight was 175 and not 170

 

I gotta go with Hasbeen Rahman over Bob "Old Fart" Fitz in this dream fight all not that appealing........ Rahman at 235 pounds and of decent caliber in the skills dept., should be able to manhandle the overly fabled 178 pound Fitz in a 10 rounder with 10 oz. Everlast gloves and modern day (1940 to 2012) mouthpieces, etc.......

Rahman TKO 8 Fitz......

MR.BILL

 

A belt? Save it, man. Every belt save for The Ring's should be turned in for suspenders. Red ones. I see no difference between Jose Sillyman's strap and red suspenders besides the fact that you have to be willing to be extorted for the strap. Otherwise they're both out of style, goofy looking, and meaningless.

Fitzsimmons' defeat of Corbett was special. How he did it was stunning. He also defeated the light heavyweight champion at 40. Forget the fact that he was capable of beating guys between 70 and 140 lbs heavier than him. That does nothing for ya?

 

D "Again" u quoted was supposed 2b "Against" , where i type from , letters get omitted sometimes , and lots of other **** .
D only bigger man of quality (only in relative terms of course , time , place , race & weight) that Fitzsimmons beat was Corbett . Who else ? I guess no1 , and as i stated , most of Fitz' worthy wins were over smaller men , just as usual with d overrated "greats" .
Fitz' was a top 10 p4p 4 his era , maybe even top 5 , lets b real and not get carried away and agree that it ends here . Choynski , Sharkey were on his level , maybe slightly better , maybe slightly worse .
But this is a matching against a heavyweight top contender of a much stronger era , so instead of turning it in2 a Bob Fitzsimmons appreciation thread , bump that thread , praise him there , get real and admit (pity i have 2 use this word here) that Fitzsimmons should b compared more 2 fighters near his own size (Donald Curry 4 1 , Curry was shorter but almost identical in terms of lean mass) than 2 some1 like Rahman . what is this joke that went out of proportions ? next u and your devout historian colleagues will match him vs a real big male Gorilla in your sketchy imagination and reply with : But if Bobby Fitz landed flush on d Gorilla's nose with his long (actually short , but y not) reach , d gorilla's nose will shatter and d fight will end right there , gorillas don't have n alcoholistic punch drunk horseshoer heart , do they ?
And then : Not claiming d gorilla doesn't stand a chance , but Fitz was a great fighter , so don't discount him automatically .

 

What is it about my saying that I'm more in Seamus camp when it comes to the pioneers chances in the modern era that you missed? What is it about "Could Fitz beat Rahman? Probably not" -that you missed?

Keep this in mind though, your quick dismissal of long-dead opponents on Fitz's record who you don't recognize is out of bounds. You and probably most of us here on Classic don't know much about the vast majority of fighters circa 1900.

 

Rereading his and his opponents' records , it seems like he was somewhat better than them , but looking at d records of his "truly heavyweight" opponents , which were probably just fat and surely not many , reaffirms my claim that they were not good , even if u take in2 consideration d possibility that each 1 of them has 5 more wins over nobodies that weren't listed , but as long as those wins were against nobodies . but i believe it is quite a good assumption 2 make .

And if u think Rahman wins easy in this 1 , Y didn't u just state it or at least left this unsuccessful joke of a match 2 its own ?

 

Who said Rahman wins easily? I said that he'd probably win. The size difference is too much and Rahman wasn't a lumbering behemoth.

The real point is that you are not a historian of Fitz's era. You look at boxrec and make all kinds of assumptions and that is not the way to go. We should take time to either develop informed opinions or at least try to resist being so certain about things we know little about.

 

If u don't think he wins easy then back 2 your sketchy imagination we go .
I c his biggest possible difficulty in this fight being Fitzsimmons' speed in his retreat and his conviction at it , supposing that he agreed 2 climb in2 d ring and doesn't retire during d referee's instruction stage or a few seconds later .
No historian of Fitz' era , but my use of boxrec proved itself here in betting . Most of d fights i bet so far on , i never seen neither participant fight in my life , only boxrec assumptions , and trust me , when d storm passes and i c my vcash refunded 2 me (all in right now) , u'll c me above 1800 and it will happen b4 June and most likely , immediately after d 5-5-2012 .
It shows that I , unlike u and 2 a greater magnitude , a few of your colleagues here can read and correctly interpret basic facts about reality , and sometimes slightly less basic , and 2 evaluate chances better than u . your being more educated about n era than myself , doesn't mean i don't know enough about it 2 conclude d obvious like in this case , because i do . Want 2 prove your worth at predicting fights ? thankfully there's a way 2 it right now , go ahead and prove it . And if u don't follow d sport closely , u still follow it no less than myself :yep , but it still doesn't prevent me from winning more than losing .

 

in comparison: i'll throw out benny leonard vs virgil hill at 175. it's a comparable size difference and comparable skill difference imo. food for thought