Who takes this one? Some would say Ruby is the hardest hitting MW in history and he was considered a marvel in his day. Is Mike to modern here or would you consider Fitz too hard hitting for even the durable Body Snatcher. My head says Mike is too modern, refined and technical for Fitz. Mike ko 9.
i really like mike's skills but sometimes i'm not sure about his ability to do what is needed to win. i posted that before and someone did have a good example of it, but i still feel that way seems obvious that a great chin is a necessary thing to beat fitz, but maybe fighting very defensive and just not getting hit is a better solution for a mw to do it. mike wins more rounds, but gets stopped in the second half.
Re the question about boxing's evolution?? I don't see this fight being competitive and McCallum, who had few flaws would hammer ruby Robert. I see the the amateurs at boxing shows and have to admit they are better than when I boxed and feel every 30 years or so there's a leap forward.
In my opinion there are a few boxers from yesteryear wo are both athletic and technical enough to make the leap forward. Langford, Gans certainly fit that mould, maybe McGovern. But Ruby for whatever reason looks really poor aside from his fight changing power. And we know in today's world power alone can't bail you out like it once could.
McCallum would win every round like he was fighting an amateur, unless he knocks him out pretty quick, could happen. Different eras, different levels.
I agree to an extent. There are some standouts from that era who would cut it today imo, just not Fitz.
Why not Fitz? Surely a finisher is the guy whose style is most likely to work in other eras. Granted he is more of an unknown quantity at middleweight than at heavyweight.
i agree too, but as far as this fight i don't think you can write fitz off based on eras/styles. fitz doesn't just have power, he has accuracy and his style was based around using those attributes. he also has(and will need) a legit chin and he matches up fine physically to mike. fitz's relativley low punch output limits the countering opportunities for mike, and in particular lefts to the body give fitz an opening for the right hand. mike wins 10/10 amateur rule fights and makes fitz look silly at points in any fight, but i think fitz has a legit chance of stopping most any middleweight who spends enough time in range.
He will always have a punchers chance, that will always remain the case, but ouside of that his skills just do not translate to the modern era.
Hard to say whether that is true or not. You do get fighters with a similar style from time to time. David Haye being a case in point. Perhaps his reflexes and ability to judge distances were so good that he could make his style work today.
