Hearns vs. Fitzsimmons at catchweight

its reasonable definitly

 

The counter argument would be that he completed their unfinished business.

We can speculate that Langford or Greb could have taken the light heavyweight title or the heavyweight title given a chance but Fitzsimmons actualy did it.

 

As much as I like Tommy, I'm still picking Fitzsimmons against Hearns. Fitzsimmons was the Linear Heavyweight Champion of the World.

 

A newspaper account from before the fight.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myL5x-qmd8
1:50

 

It's just wrong to pick Hearns over Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons went a 14 year stretch (from age 27 to 41), over approx. 40 fights, where only the monstrous Jim Jeffries beat him. And he was beating the best men in the world, many weighing 175 - 200+ pounds. He also beat some great smaller fighters.

I dont see how Hearns can be favoured, UNLESS you totally dismiss every fighter of that era and the overall quality with no good film evidence to back such a position up.

 

The Hearns at 175 that KO'd Dennis Andries and outboxed Virgil Hill in 1991 would be a very tough opponent for the vastly overrated Bobby Fitzs...... I'd love to see the fight in a time machine......

MR.BILL:admin:bbb

 

In a fight with two huge punchers, bet on the one with whiskers.

 

Well that would be Hearns. Seen various pics with him sporting whiskers, where Bob always seems to be pretty clean.

 

Hearns by brutal KO, the little film there is of Fitzimmons shows him with his heard stuck right in the air, throwing one punch at a time. Just cos he's old doesnt mean he's great.

 

Bob Fitzsimmons beat men who were bigger and badder than Thomas Hearns, that's a fact.

Thomas Hearns was a vicious puncher, a truly awesome fighter. But Fitzsimmons beat guys who were even more dangerous than Hearns.

 

There is also the question of wrist support, which the modern glove offers over the comparatively primitive gloves of Fitz' era. With modern gloves a fighter can throw his best punches without worrying about damaging his hands and wrists, unless he has severe hand issues. Even with 4oz. gloves damaging the hands/wrists back then must have been a concern.

The way they bandage a fighter's hands nowadays also adds to hand protection, and I'd say the way they bandage the hands is designed to inflict damage as much as anything.

So all in all fighting with 10oz. gloves now enables knockouts as much as 4oz. gloves back then, no problem.

 

True, but Hearns as a boxer was streets ahead of Fitz' opposition. At 169 I'd pick Hearns to stay out of trouble and either decision Fitz or stop him mid-rounds.

 

I dont know whether Hearns was "streets ahead of Fitz' opposition" as a boxer. I seriously doubt it.