Bob Fitzimmons v Harry Greb

How many rounds? Greb's attacking style vs Fitz deadly power and counter punching? THis plays into Fitz's hands.

I like Greb via decision in 10 rounds or less, Fitz over 10 rounds.

 

At his peak, Greb had insane endurance. Later on, he paced himself a bit.

I see a prime Greb never being where Fitz needs him, the latter's traps being a day late for Greb's spastic footwork. In the interim, Greb lays on quite a beating.

 

Endurance is not the question. Durability is, which is why the amount of rounds is important. Could Greb take Fitz's body shots or head shots?

Style wise, Fitz has the edge even if Greb is faster and harder to catch.

Greb did not have much power. Fitz, who looks like Rocky Marciano unloading for a few seconds in the final moments before the KO on film vs Corbett could let his hands go with no fear.

 

It is the question, actually. Because of Greb's style of continuous foot movement, in and out, and laterally. Many a reporter repeated the same anecdote of a world class fighter unloading a punch on Greb only to discover Greb was, in fact, already behind him. Fitz liked to set up his shots with traps and a set stance. A prime Greb is not going to allow this.[/QUOTE]

Greb put a lot of hurt on a lot of fighters. He put Tunney in a hospital bed for almost a week. He could definitely punch when he sat down on his shots. Even with out being planted, his accumulation created a lot of damage. Not that Fitz couldn't take it.

Yes, if Fitz catches lightning in a bottle, things could be over in an instant. But according to news reports, Greb was known to pick up the pace toward and beyond 10 rounds, not lessen it.

I pick Greb... with some reservations. Again, with all time greats, any choice emphatically either way is a bit silly.

 

Greb didn't so much swarm against the big fellows but, if the accounts are to be believed, went in and out and used distance. He was just that quick on his feet. Fitz would have to time that movement... Only Gibbons and Tunney really came close to doing this during Greb's prime, and both were also unable to do it other matches. I am not going to assume Fitz had their level of skill in his department.

I will shut up now.

 

Greb put a lot of hurt on a lot of fighters. He put Tunney in a hospital bed for almost a week. He could definitely punch when he sat down on his shots. Even with out being planted, his accumulation created a lot of damage. Not that Fitz couldn't take it.

Yes, if Fitz catches lightning in a bottle, things could be over in an instant. But according to news reports, Greb was known to pick up the pace toward and beyond 10 rounds, not lessen it.

I pick Greb... with some reservations. Again, with all time greats, any choice emphatically either way is a bit silly.[/quote]
Good post.:good

 

I agree with Seamus, and I'm probably the biggest Fitzsimmons supporter on this site.

Fitzsimmons stood very solidly. His front-foot-elevated style prevented rapid movement. He was long and lanky enough that he didn't need rapid movement much. Fitz set traps and destroyed guys who came to him like Maher and Sharkey. His shifts were fairly stationary, since Fitz relied upon repositioning the front foot rather than truly mobile footwork like Corbett's. That's why Corbett gave him such trouble. And he didn't have a real jab so much as a cross between a left hook and a fencing lunge. Very powerful, very competently set up with feints, and not ideal for larger gloves.

Greb, by all accounts, was mobile. He was also elusive, unpredictable, and accustomed to a more modernized ruleset. Neither man has a size advantage, either. Greb takes this.

 

Greb's route to victory is well established, but there'll be one big question mark above his head for as long as this one goes.

Fitzsimmons is deservedly looked upon as a true anomaly of the ring. Greb very well may have the single greatest record in the sports history. Still, he never fought a Bob Fitzsimmons.

While the Pittsburgh Windmill is busy darting around his relatively static foe, cutting and marking that pale skin, Bob will have his notebook out. Fitzsimmons' signature victory tells us that he can be outmanoeuvred, frustrated, and still execute a plan. Things don't have to be going well, he doesn't have to light you up. One shot and WHAM! His concentration levels were superb. If he manages to time Greb with a body shot or a chin-checker...

Greb very well may run away with a decision, but it's the ultimate swarmer vs. the ultimate trap-smith. There's no guarantees.

 

If Greb fought this fight similar to Leonard's effort v Hearns, ie lots of movement ,and in and out forays ,I give him an excellent chance.
One mistake however and goodnight Harry!

 

Yeah, I certainly am not going to fault anyone picking Fitz.

I like this Ted Spoon quote...."Fitzsimmons is deservedly looked upon as a true anomaly of the ring."

 

Fitz is one of my favorites. Hes damn close if not right up there with Greb in terms of greatness but I think this is a stylistic nightmare for him. The only clear advantage I would give Fitzsimmons is punching power and thats not something you want to rely on against a lightning fast, elusive, durable, volume puncher. If its a finish fight I may very well favor Fitz but prime for prime, if we are going 10 to 45 rounds Id favor Greb and I think hed make Fitz look bad.