Foster never had much joy at heavy but if he were to face the heavy weight champion version of fitzsimmons? Id say 15 rounds but not sure it gets past the 5 th.
I agree with your thoughts regarding rounds needed. My pick would be Fitzsimmons by KO around the fifth. Although I obviously know he's not a natural Heavy himself (very far from it), I would fancy Fitz against any natural LHW moving up, apart from Langford or Tunney. I would also fancy him against most natural Cruisers, save Marciano and Holyfield. But then, I'm a fan to be honest.
Foster was stopped often at heavyweight, with the division back then being over 175 pounds. He would not last vs Fitzsimmons, who took punches from Sharkey and Choysnki, two hard hitters and went 8 and 11 rounds with Jeffries. Fitz was not an easy guy to stop! From Feb 1890 to July 1904, a 14 year period the only man to stop Fitz was Jeffries. Best guess, Fitz via KO inside six rounds, could be over early if Fitz lands.
Quality assessment. But I might just be saying that because it's so close to my own, haha! Fitz was a beast. Tracy Callis has him at number one p4p. That guy favours the old school too much, but hell, he's done his research.
I agree totally. Despite being so great at lght heavy he just didn't carry that power up to the big boys. I see him maybe winning the first couple of rounds but I Fitz really starting to connect from then on. Some point before 5 Fitz shows foster true heavyweight power and puts him down hard.
Cheers. At the risk of garnering hate, I'm one of those idiots who still has little Fitz in my top twenty atg heavies. Incidentally I have him at 19. Just below Bowe and the Klitschkos, and just above Sullivan and Corbett.
This content is protected This content is protected Fitzsimmons with that lean back on his right leg, walking forward with his hands at his waist style might last 30 seconds IF Foster is too busy laughing to knock him out sooner.
Fitz was a triple crown winner at the middle, light heavy and heavy. Very rare. Nat Fleischer rated him as the best KO artist ever..at heavyweight. Fitz produced many ten counts and three fatalities from boxing. News reports said he had cobra-like hand speed, and a way of fully driving his punch with weight and leverage behind it, knowing exactly where to hit. Even the top boxers of the time such as Joe Gans, who looks rather good and modern on film would stop what they are doing to watch Fitz work or spar. While I do not think Fitzsimmons would match up well vs a modern skilled super heavyweight with a jab and power, we are talking about Bob Foster here, and he just could not take it.
My instincts are telling me to favor Fitzsimmons for two reasons. Firstly he made the transition past 175lbs much better, which is what this is basically going to come down to, even if Fitzsimmons might be less than this weight. Secondly he obviously took a punch much better.
Fitzsimmons style seems to have varied somewhat, depending upon the type of opponent that he was fighting. I am going on written accounts here, but I would not assume that what he does against Corbett, is what he would do against Foster.
The HW limit means nothing here; Foster was bigger anyway. What matters is that Fitz competed more successfully against bigger guys than Foster did. Both being KO punchers, I like the durable guy more probably. I think Foster is capable of winning, as he has the skill and technique, but poor Foster just wasn't that durable. My head says Foster, my gut says Fitz.
It's these matches I hate to pick a winner because I think highly of Fitz but Fitz didn't fight a Frazier, Ellis or an Ali in this fight Foster has every edge except chin....Foster IMO hit harder than Corbett and Sharkey but at 6'3" strikes first for a KO