Greatest wins of Bob Fitzsimmons?

That makes about zero sense, Janitor.

I'll bite though since I've been drinking...

That guy would not and could not mimic that style because he's too good to allow himself to. His muscle memory and automatic habits wouldn't allow it. Period.

He could and certainly would devastate any of the guys on the films in question though...

I shouldn't have ever mentioned myself as the example, because people got triggered hahhaaaaaaa

But I can confidently say I'd bet the house on Trinidad, Tszyu, Curry as a few examples of much smaller guys who would beat the tar out of Corbett and Fitz.

You'd have to go lightweight or lower to find world-class modern guys these fellows could beat.

Real talk.

 

TBI, you nailed it, right there. You are arguing with clueless people who have little/no understanding of boxing. One of the guys you are "discussing" boxing with thought slipping a punch was a lost art known as the "wizard technique." When you point out that the old timers weren't good, it is like telling a child there is no Tooth Fairy. With their lack of knowledge about the mechanics of boxing their only retort is personal attacks. Don't let it bother you, they read a lot of Bert Sugar, but they don't know about boxing.

 

Fitzsimmons was a freak of nature. Give him a few months to adjust to modern gloves and ring trends and you will have a killer. Maybe not as a heavyweight but certainly as supermiddle and lightheavy. Same with Gans, Langford, Johnson. They translate into any era with a few tweaks to adjust. Pluck them out of the turn of the century and drop them into a modern ring and, sure, there would be problems. But humans haven't changed much at all in 120 years. It is what is was... and they were generally way tougher.

 

The other guys you mention are already ready to compete.... They were standouts. They were outliers. Maybe lacked a bit of shine but you can see they're a cut above.

I'm sure you make a time machine and bring Fitz here, he studies what's going on and he'll be like "got it"... But that's not who we're talking about. The guy we're talking about has a murderous right hand you can see coming 10 miles away... No way he competes. No way.

The opponents back then were sloppy enough and simply not good enough to see those punches coming. They literally couldn't be wider or more telegraphed.

Please note that I was careful about who I talked **** about. I specifically called out Fitz, Corbett, and Ruhlin.

Note that I also agree that these guys were tough as they come from a tough era. Tough people all around.

Humans haven't changed much, but technique has, and its a standard now to see a right hand coming and automatically have 2 or 3 options on counters you don't even think about before you're throwing them. That wasn't the case at all 110 years ago...

 

OK lets put it another way.

Take a world class light heavyweight, tie one arm behind their back, and they would still annihilate you with the first clean punch that landed.

 

Good point!

 

You're really upset about all this.
Write it down in your journal so you have new material to talk about with your therapist.

Also adjust your dosage.

 

I am not remotely upset, just dumbfounded!

 

I remember Adam Pollack sharing his thoughts on this whole modern v ancient technique argument... To paraphrase, boxing is fairly simple. At the end of the day, it is all about hitting and not getting hit back. It was the same 120 years ago as it is today. A few new tricks or trends that are not merely the result of rule changes and glove size and round numbers are but icing on the cake. You can't make championship fighters; you can only polish the championship fighter that already exists.

 

This probably did more to help the smaller fighters succeed against the bigger fighters, than any minimal increase in concussive force associated with the smaller gloves.