Let's Talk about Bob Fitzsimmons

Not that I disagree per se, but when making universal claims, the onus is on you to elaborate and describe in which ways they are far superior.

Take for example the differences in guard, stance, hitting technique relative to the gloves, ruleset and fight length of the comparative times - if you explained the shift in differences and how these came about, you'd get less pushback e.g. take football - I could explain why a Cristiano Ronaldo is a superior footballer to Stanley Matthews in terms of dribbling technique, heading ability, two-footedness and general athleticism - I could then break it down to advances in sports science, nutrition, coaching, training intensity, finance, equipment etc. This sort of analysis is more persuasive in a debate than just x is far superior to y.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Learn from each other. Top fighters in any discipline are clever enough to work out how to reverse their disadvantages; how to take advantage of stylistic weaknesses, indeed, how to prevent exposure of their own. This is true for boxing, judo, ju-jitsu, Muay Boran, Muay Thai, Lethwei, karate, MMA, you name it - top fighters innovate and experiment - they learn by fighting each other. The same way that Sun Tzu advocated not showing your enemy too much of what you have lest they devise ways to beat you.

I'm not one to say that sport doesn't evolve - I am one to say that there are skillsets that have been long forgotten due to the changes in the sport, some of which may surprise and expose today's fighters.

What is not in doubt for me is that the likes of Fitz and Langford, in any era, once acclimatised, carry the kind of power and punching ability to take out most men in wicked fashion.

 

Sneaky trick question incoming:

You are assuming that over time, sports get better, and better skills are developed. So presumably the boxers in 1900 are more skilful than the boxers in 1800, and the boxers from 2000 are better still.

Is that correct? And if so, how certain are you of that?

 

Fitzsimmons had Jem Mace to learn from, among others.

 

I don't think Pat M (or apparently White Bomber) would go so far as to say that learning old-timey boxing actually makes you a worse boxer than a complete novice. That would be nuts. I'm not even sure how a style that makes you worse could develop in a sport with full contact sparring.

EDIT: By now, MMA is old enough that you could probably just ask MMA guys whether Tunney's style or Tommy Burns's style would make more sense with tiny gloves and dirty boxing. Tommy in particular moves a little like Machida/Conor or those bouncy little WKF point karate guys who don't want to be hit, and who don't wear big gloves. Wide stance, low hands, etc.

 

If they are far superior, then why it took so long to learn them? Boxing is pretty simple sport and it's very old.

What changed that they got the idea? Or are you implying that people were too limited back then to understand modern boxing style?

From each other, in contrast to what you think they spent years of mastering their craft. Do you really think there were no experiments with stances, punching techniques and styles back then? Then you're wrong, because plenty of styles existed back then.

 

It worked quite well though, right? So you basically proved my point.

 

At least that's good, maybe I mistaken him with someone else.

But how evolved and why? These are important questions, you can't just say that "boxing evolved". I can give you a lot of reasons why basketball doesn't look like in the 1960s now. These things are important, your quote shows no evidences.

So you truly believe that modern style is such a magical wonder that it'd turn anyone who boxes now into the world champion in Fitzsimmons era? You truly believe that? Then why there are successful fighters today who don't fight in orthodox way? Why are there so many styles yet? Do you think that about any modern amateur, without counting for his style?

 

This are some of Pat M's quotes about Fitzsimmons:

Most of the old time fighters look about the same, they fight like people who have not been trained. Substitute two actors and there is little difference. I looked at the video again, the guy playing Fitzsimmons does manage a straight punch, unusual for that time. The guy playing Jeffries manages to keep his feet spaced, unlike Jeffries in the Johnson fight, and the video is clearer.

Comparing him to trained fighters is a joke. He fights like he has never trained in boxing. He wouldn't last 30 seconds against anyone in the top 200 at 160 today. Look at the video, this guy wouldn't be licensed today in a state with a good commissioner.

 

As I've said before, I don't see the astonishing evolution in boxing. Some seem to believe that boxers evolve so much in about 25 years that guys boxing in their primes 25 years back wouldn't even be able to compete with their modern counterparts. IMHO, I'm not buying that.

Here's 1 case in point: George Foreman. In January, 1973, George, at the age of 24 (pretty prime for a slugger) won the Lineal Heavyweight Championship. He won the Lineal Heavyweight title again in November, 1994, when nearly 46 years old (not prime for any fighter). In fact, in November, 1997, when nearly 49 years old (definitely not prime), George entered the ring as Lineal Heavyweight Champion for the last time. This was 2 months shy of 25 years later. How can that be? Was 46 or 49 year old George as good or better than 24 year old George, and had he EVOLVED as a fighter? You tell me.

 

Yes, that is correct and I am 100% certain of that. As long as the rules of a sport remain constant, and as long as sportsmen put in the same our of work, sports evolve. New sportsmen learn from the innovations of their predecessors.
Or in the worst case scenario, they remain at the same level, but they don't regress. Not unless way less people take up that sport.

But if the rules change, it becomes way harder for the sport to keep evolving. Sometimes it might regress, due to rule changes that make it easier.
The best example is a basketball analogy. Before 2005, the NBA allowed what is called "handchecking": a rule that allows defensive players to out their elbow out to "check" the offensive player's movement. Various degrees of grabbing were allowed and that helped the defensive players and trammeled the offensive players. As a result, scoring fell, and as the games morphed into battles of attrition, ratings fell.
To combat that, the handchecking rules were abrogated and the league immediately witnessed a spike in scoring. Players who were averaging 20-25 PPG found themselves scoring 30 PPG. Everyone was setting career highs in scoring averages overnight. That happened because the rules made it easier for the offensive players. It wasn't because all of them happened to coincidentally have a career spike at the same time.

As for boxing, I feel that the overall level is just a bit lower at HW now. And that boxers try to make as much money as they can, and aren't that interested in glory anymore.

 

It seems like Pat M knows his stuff

 

Foreman won due to a lucky punch. He was dominated all night long in that fight. And he pretty much got beat by any good HW he faced in the 90s.

 

They're only called lucky punches when they land and do the job of knocking the opponent on his back for the 10 count. So are all the ones that didn't land on the button unlucky punches? If George "pretty much got beat by any good HW he faced in the 90s," he was an average 90's Heavyweight then? Do you think it's possible that George partly set up Michael for that shot? Any skills at all involved there, or could any average Heavyweight have landed that, and been crowned Lineal Heavyweight Champion, if he had been the recipient of sufficient good luck?

 

In his first quote, he described actors that tried to repeat Fitzsimmons vs Jeffries fight and he didn't even know they were actors... Yeah he definitely knows his stuff, but I'm not sure how much it has to do with boxing. Apparently, he couldn't find a difference between acted fight and real one.

 

I think the rules caveat is important.

The reason I asked is because if you look at bareknuckle boxing in the early 1800s, it looks a lot more modern than it did in the late 1800s. High guard, normal stance, etc. So it would initially appear that for 80 or 90 years, boxing "evolved" in the wrong direction.

My own solution to this quandary is the one you allude to. I think the late 19th century style is better for that era's rules than modern boxing would be.