Bob Fitzsimmons vs Bob Foster at 175

Foster had that whipping jab and curved posture which made it tough to get at his body. Moving in to do so opened up the risk of catching hell. Still, that dynamite overshadowed nice fundamentals. Bob could blind you with the left, play possum, time counters. Fitzsimmons would need to be alert to pins dropping.

The reason one should put more stock in a Ruby victory is ring generalship. He proved himself able to adapt to a degree Foster never did. The trapsmith could also be the two-handed attacker. A brilliant understanding of distance and timing put world class fighters away with head and body shots. Part of the reason Fitz was such a devastating puncher - a rare case of power and scope, and his keen observations would serve him well in a mortar-swapping bout like this.

Fitzimmons via mid round KO.

 

Is Foster fighting in Fitz' era or is Fitz fighting in Foster's. If Fitz is being time warped to the 70's with the equipment of that era he gets his head handed to him. Foster's jab would set up the heavier punches that follow and they would be coming in fast, hard and in combos that Fitz probably wasn't used to encountering in his own time. That leaning back hands down style was prevalent in the early 1900's but wouldn't work in the more modern age. Fitz would have a long hard jab in his face which would take him out of his gameplan. He would be too busy watching for the heavy stuff to put his own strategy to work. Now send Foster back to Fitz' era and it's a different story. Power Puncher brought up the point that boxing has evolved and in some ways he's right...but the equipment evolved as well and that led to changes in technique. Better and bigger gloves, better mouthpieces, better handwraps and different rules allowed a fighter to be freer with his hands. Shorter bouts also picked up the pace. Try to imagine say Saad Muhammed/Marvin Johnson fighting like Fitz...It wouldn't "work" if you know what I mean. Anyone agree out there?

 

Leaning back seemed to work okay in the 70s for Muhammed Ali. Actually, many people considered him a freak and marvelled at his elasticity.

Who is to say that it couldnt work equally as well for the likes of Fitz, Corbett and co? Arguably, they were more skilled at it than Ali, because this style was much more prevalent during their times.

 

i thought it was his main technical weakness and the reason he got hit with left hooks so often, a flaw his incredible speed was able to cover up rather than some sort of smart technical innovation to bring it back.

if you can link me any film of a fighter from the corbett era(or any era tbh) effectivley neutralising a larger, simillarly quick, technically proficient combination puncher, with a good jab and a reach advantage by leaning back then i will agree that you are right.

 

Jack Johnson vs Jess Willard (first 15 rounds)?


Leaning back is probably what saved Ali against Foreman isnt it?

A fighter like Lamotta who is said to have an iron chin is adamant that his chin was nothing special, but it was his ability to roll with the punches that meant that they never landed cleanly. The leaning back concept is similar in theory in that it makes it harder to land cleanly, and arguably is why Ali had such a good chin.

I dont think that leaning back is the best way to fight or anything. But I also dont think you can discount someone because you dont like their style. MOre often than not speed, power and desire trump all else. For arguments sake, do you think Bob Foster would defeat George Foreman just because Foreman decided to experiment and lean back with low hands?

Fitzsimmons, who has a good thread on here designated to his style, was unorthodox for any era. Most of the great ones were. Interestingly, he didnt actually lean back solely as a means of defending. This was just one method of defence. He didnt always have his hands down by his side. Foster himself, was not exactly a textbook fighter. He always fought in a high stance, strangely he fights completely side on. It is hard to see how he can generate power from such a stance and i dont see how he can use his right without telegraphing it. To be fair, his record suggests he obviously found a way. Foster to me, because of his stance, could never land on Fitz with his right, unless he hurt him very bad. I think fitz would be always circling to Fosters right (i know corbett would be) . This will allow Fitz to pile up the points and damage. it is only a matter of time from there before Fitz sneaks that right foot forward and knocks foster out with the left shift.

Stylistically, Foster is absolutely tailor made for Fitz. His only chance is his legendary power and the hope that the sport has simply evolved too much since the 1900s.

 

that's a pretty good example actually, it was a very one off fight tho(buildup, ropes ect) and doesn't fit the criteria as foreman was slower and not a technically sound(or at least straight and accurate) puncher like foster was, but i can't disagree with that sentence on it's own.

leaning back is similar to rolling yes, but I disagree that leaning back is anywhere near as effective as rolling with punches, you can roll infinate times left-right-left-right, and are not as off balance following the head sideways as backwards. you can only lean back so far, then you are in a mostly bad position, with no where for the head to go except forward. you can try it yoursef, lean left and you can move left easily and around fine, lean back and try to move around, not a great feeling, and going back leaning back feels real dodgy(i specify the same direction as the body likes following the head).

I have nothing against fitz's style in general, but in this matchup, once the physical tools have been factored in, i don't like it at all.
there is a huge size and style distance between fitz and foreman, foster is the bigger longer man in this matchup which makes leaning back far more relevant, a bigger man leaning back is less of a problem.

mike quarry was generally cirlcling right vs foster, it did limit the right hand from foster, but fosters left more than made up for it there, and when he did use the right, it was effective, particularly as an uppercut. corbett, who i do not think looks very good on film, (but there is not much of it and he clearly had some physical and mental gifts) was having left hand based success v fitz until the ko.

obviously fitz by ko is possible, but i can't pick it here. I would agree that method is the likely way it would happen if fitz did get the KO.

I am not a modern is better by default guy btw, i'd pick fitz over a bunch of todays mw's, but the difference is that he would be the same size, have a significant power adv, and they generally just aint bob foster.

 

Good thread. I have seen a lot of Foster but not enough of Fitzimmons to make a pick. Really interesting match up. though.

 

It was one of the major criticisms of early Clay, but his footwork and balance weren't as bad as Fitz's in the pictures we have of him. Clay had some of the fastest reactions and footwork in boxing history alongside advantages in height and reach that let him get away with this.

Still Frazier ultimately punished him for this error in FOTC much like Barrera punished Hamed for a similar error when they fought. An old Lennox punished Vitali for it.

Fitz was probably faster than his contemparies but not as quick as Foster

 

I doubt Fitz was as fast as Corbett actually , but he had the equalizer.

 

Fitzsimmons KO

 

I lean to Fitz as he's a really great fighter plus Fosters durability under Fitz's power raises questions,,,,but Fosters jab in this fight gives me a pause. It might be Fitz that needs to ko Foster for the win as Foster takes a decision . But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

Foster would destroy this jurassic specimen

 

The problem with Fitzsimmons, as far as I can now gather, is a mistaken belief by current posters about his fighting style and his attributes.

He fought with low hands, leaning to avoid the shots of Corbett, but that doesn't mean he fights the same way every time. Corbett had a reputation as a master stick and move artist. He also was known to be quicker than Fitzsimmons. Is it possible Fitz fought the way he fought because he knew he needed to knock Corbett out? That he saw concocted his game plan because he knew is Corbett came forward enough with the jab at some point he'd be able to time him? Ali was considered a tactical genius when he rope adoped Foreman, so is it fair to label one fighter a genius and the other outdated?

I question this because when you read fight reports of his other fights, they don't seem to mention him consistently fighting with low hands, nor planting his feet and leaning back.

I mean read this report on his rematch with Jeffries, which is famously one of his most complete performances :

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=yJwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4822,4995359&hl=en

In that fight he seems to use foot and head movement, ambush attacks and high activity.

 

That's fair assumption as Fitzsimmons changed his style up to his opponent. When you read about his fights, he didn't fight the same way twice. I'm certain that he fought against Corbett with low guard and lack of movement because he knew it was his best chance.

 

By the way, Fitzsimmons by KO. He faced some murderous hitters and did well against them, while Foster doesn't have durability to stay with Fitz for a long time.