The ESB Fitzsimmons Project

Fitzsimmons was much more agressive at 160lbs as Janitor eruditely expressed. As he climbed the ranks his style simmered down into a dangerous form of 'cameo blitzing' with counter-punches, if you will. He was especially fond of a one-two with hooks to the head, the combination which vanquished the talented Jim Hall for good. Lennox Lewis was also very fond of this combo.

It can also be seen on this video against Corbett around the 3:17 mark:

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOFdL5VkcQM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOFdL5VkcQM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

 

Bob was up at 7. Does he beat the count if he doesnt grab on to save his life after the knockdown? him grabbing on to corbett seemed to havesaved him at least 5 seconds. I am suprised this is not more controversial in the minds of historians.

Nice footage though...I think it clear enough to grasp a sense of styles. Overall I have to admit, both great fighters for there era..but both behind in boxing technique compared to future eras.

 

ill sift through some articles on Thursday and might try out afew things.

I tried doing that front foot think Fitz did and it was hard to do as old habits die hard.

 

Janitor can i just add, i thought combination punching was uncommon in the day by looking at pictures of Fitzsimmons defence which only looks like it would deal with 1 shot at a time. However reading into it further combination punching isnt rare + add in the fact i sat on my remote the other day about post 3 or 4 on here.

Im baffled how Fitz defence worked

 

Those pictures Cross proudly displayed for us demonstrating technique in the olds days are very historical and informitive. However on the broad side of things, it appear to me many of the block techniques fitzsimmons appeared to use were more karate like blocks then boxing technique.

I think I saw two techniques in there that looked like WAX ON WAX OFF and SOUND OF FLOOR

 

Combination punching back then is a vexed issue because of lack of film.

In the absence of evidence we have to consider that James Figg might have used combinations.

It is prety clear cut from the contemporary sources that Jem Mace typicaly finishe his oponents off with a combination.

Bob Fitzsimmons threw verry complex combinations at times.

Joe Gans seems to have emplyed sustained combination punching.

The question is not whether these early fighters threw combinations but whether their combination punching was representative of the period or the sorcery that led to them being clled legends.

In terms of how Fitz's defence worked I think it worked on the principle that if you threw one punch you would have better things to worry about than throwing combinations.

 

i beleive combination punches were used definitly

 

I cant see the photos on my computer but I saw them on a link you posted a week or so ago.

 

Perhaps look a bit closer at his combos as described in the papers.

This is all good in a textbook but the newspaper acounts suggest that Fitz reacted and adapted to his situation in terms of the combinations he threw. He was reactive above all.

If you think his style was limited to some manual and he couldn't think on his feet then you are selling him 90% short.

 

How about Ali vs Holmes or Berbick? Or Tyson vs McBride? Maybe the elegant and graceful Foreman vs any of his comeback opponents particularly Schulz or Moorer?

From Fitz' text book:
"In guarding always keep your elbows close to your sides. This takes in the benefit of the forearm, and if the glove be held close to the face all that side of the body is protected. Never land a punch without having the block ready to meet the counter."

Did Fitz actually have a high guard at times, or does the use of the word face instead of chin mean something different.

Which element of the stance makes him susceptible? You need to be more specific so that we can see what Fitzsimmons actually says about it and how he deals with it, rather than just guessing ourselves. I used to think he stood too square (for example) and you might be right, but his manual says otherwise.

Fitz again:
"The man who would evade an onslaught by thrusting back his head and body so that he is almost falling backward is all wrong. His adversary could follow the attack and easily have the "backward" man at his mercy."

Well i guess you got the part about being susceptible to a Joe Louis (or even Bill Lang) combination punch correct. Only problem is that so did Fitz. It appears as if his defence was not as it seems to you, doesnt it?

From Fitz again:
"When a blow is struck the proper way to avoid it is not to stop it with the hand or forearm, but to "slip" it. By "slipping" a blow, I mean that you should get away from it in such a manner that no part of your opponent's arm touches you. This is known as "ducking" and "side-stepping." For instance, if your sparring partner swings his right for the side of your face, lower your head and let the blow go over. Do not "duck" in toward him. Let your head go under the blow and away from it to the side. This prevents your opponent from landing an upper-cut, which he would do if you were close enough to him."

Sounds like head movement to me!

 

Yeah, he invented itatsch Did he teach Sam Langford and others also? Johnson fought at exactly the same time as Fitzsimmons. The actually fought each other? Did these traits just suddenly appear or did film quality slowly start to get a little bit better?

He was a great fighter, but this has nothing to do with Fitz, who as was illustrated in my last post also did all those things. Or at least he knew that was what he was supposed to do. Maybe you are saying that he just wasnt able to execute the way he wanted to. This would be a bit of a surprise though, given his amazing record.

Stiff left jabs are an interesting thing. The only real difference between old and new that seems to be really prevalent is that old stance has weight on the back foot, while new has the weight evenly distributed. Try the two out (and unless CTs next posts which i havent read yet say otherwise), I would have thought this meant that the new stance allows a faster jab, the old stance would allow a "stiffer" jab.