Let's Talk about Bob Fitzsimmons

The only people obsessed with food, are anorexics and the morbidly obese!

 

bUt ThEy LeAn BaCk

 

Would it be possible that Fitzsimmons started his career with poor fundamentals (by 2021 standard), but he became very good fighter under his own style through sheer experience and physical tools? I often hear that modern unorthodox fighters live boxing day in and day out, which is why they are so good despite not optimal strategies. Why can't we accept that Fitzsimmons could be similar?

I mean, he fought for almost 30 years in professional boxing at the highest level, he likely trained boxing for 40 years. We know that his dedication is unquestionable and a lot of younger fighters admired his technique. He could learn how to box with his unorthodox style and realize how to overcome potential weaknesses of his stance, his guard and his punching technique.

Do you all really think that a man who fought for such a long time against the best competition available would be lost against modern novices because they'd use high guard against him? Do you think that Fitzsimmoms never thought that putting his hands up is a nice idea? Or that he didn't know that leaning back has its disadvantages?

These are all legit questions I'd like to see answers for. If you think that people were simply stupid back then, then sorry but it's the same period when Albert Einstein created the most imaginative physics theory ever so far. People definitely weren't stupid back then and boxing certainly isn't too advanced for Fitzsimmons generation. Boxing isn't that advanced in general.

 

He's not from Australia, he was from Cornwall and moved to New Zealand when he was 11

 

Nobody said it isn't possible for him to develop a style that works. But his style worked only for his era.
He wouldn't get beat by modern opponents just cause they have high guard, he'd get beat simply cause they are way more skilled and can launch offensives that he will be completely overwhelmed by, that he won't even be able to comprehend, let alone counter.

 

You failed to understand what I'm talking about. Fitzsimmons fought his style for around 30 years. He faced a lot of opponents with various styles and abilities. He was certainly capable of his style weaknesses and he knew how to avoid mistakes.

Let me put this straight - do you really think that modern amateurs do things that Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to comprehend? Like what - combinations, counters? If so, they why he never faced anyone who could do these things? Again, learning combinations are not hard to do, even childs could develop basics of combo punching.

Do you really think that boxers were too dumb to learn that back then? If all you need is modern "skills", then why nobody ever fought this way back then and was successful? The boxing existed for ages and again - modern fundamentals are not something that people had to work ages on - boxing is a simple sport.

 

You Cannot Grasp The True Form of Golovkins' Attack!

 

Suggesting that Marciano's greatest critics on this forum are secretly Italian-American heavyweight sluggers from the 1950s?

 

Devil's advocate time:

Gloved boxing is a very conservative sport that began at a time when its techniques were designed for a different set of rules. (Bareknuckle punching/judo/hockey fights with 30 seconds of unconsciousness needed for a knockout.) Consequently, it evolved very slowly into something that would be optimized for modern gloved rules.

The primitive version of boxing that existed in 1900 was considerably inferior to modern technique, but it was better than being untrained. Fighters who had been trained in it were reluctant to change the way they'd been taught. The risk was too high to experiment too much, and their muscle memory would have been drilled in the older style of their coaches anyway. Plus, they were already pretty good with what they had. So any innovation would have come inch by inch.

Ironically, the old timers' attitudes would have been very similar to modern critics who turn up their noses at the old timers' styles. Both are basically doing the same thing. They are reacting with conservative contempt toward anything that looks innovative, since most "innovative" stuff in boxing will probably get you KTFO.

/ devil's advocate.

 

No, just that they are more consumed by him, than the people who admire him are.

 

I am not prepared to just write off Bob Fitzsimmons with one sentence based on his size and a grainy film I have watched against an opponent with a particularly unorthodox boxing style. Bob obviously was baiting and setting traps throughout that fight. I do not think he believed he could win a decision over Jim Corbett. In that one respect the fight they had sort of reminds me of Foreman and Moorer with Foreman setting traps. I am not sure how good he was as a Heavyweight but I suspect there may be at least some other Lineal Heavyweight Champions down through the ages that he could do well against. I have always wanted to do a more detailed study of Fitzsimmons and now may be a good time to pursue that.

 

Well, some of that makes sense but you can always find a few people who decide to "**** off fundamentals" and do it their own way. I'm sure that the most reasonable way to defend yourself when you are a novice is to keep your hands high. Yet nobody like this happened back then for some reason.

I have a suspicion that the combination of small gloves and different cliching rules made modern style significantly less effective back then. I could be wrong of course, but again - is modern boxing style more advanced than the old one? The old one required much more focus on not getting hit, which is inarguably harder. Besides, let's not act like Fitzsimmons techniques aren't used today anymore. His shift was still in use by HW champion in the 1980s.

Not to mention that, even after playing devil's advocate, you are way kinder for Fitzsimmons than most haters here. Some bright minds like Pat M, dinovelvet or White Bomber believe that Fitzsimmons was clueless and knew as much about boxing as childs that are fighting on the street. Most of them believe that you can take a complete novice without any experience and he'd box Bob's ears off.

I really wish some of these "oldschool haters" respond to my question instead of you though. Don't get me wrong, your reply is very reasonable but I don't see this level of rational thinking in their posts.

 

Various styles and abilities

This content is protected

, not modern styles and abilities, which are far superior.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Ali did, but it only worked very well when he was young. When he got older, his lack of proper fundamentals was his downfall.

 

I don't believe that Fitzsimmons was clueless, he obviously knew what he was doing. But what he was doing only worked for his era.
Boxing evolved, just like any other sport.
No, I don't believe any modern guy that barely knows how to box will beat him, but I do believe any decent modern amateur, who has had competitive matches and some experience, will definitely beat him.