Foster could punch but he was more fragile than Fitz, Im going with the Game Chicken or whatever he was called, tough as nails and fists like anvils
I think people make it out to be more of a struggle than it really was, and Foster was already getting up there in age at 34. Rondon performed badly but the fight shows why Foster could be devastating: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_RKrws5c4[/ame] A younger Foster: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEX1liQp5JA[/ame]
Based on what I love these arguments of fighters no one can truly make an informed analysis of. Fitz may have been amazing, he may have a style that hasn't aged well. We can't really tell but he doesn't look good on the available footage
I had Foster up by a point or so going into the 14th. It was definitely close. Though the fact that even Harry Carpenter seemed to have it wider troubled me somewhat. That was Foster at his best IMO. And that was just a few months pre-Finnegan. So he can't have declined massively.
Well based on their records rather than footage, its Fitz easily. Both were big punchers, except Fitz carried his power and durability up to heavyweight, Foster wasnt all that as a master boxer either. Based on styles its harder to tell
THis is where you are wrong. Do the research ... how many different first hand accounts of the man and his opponents do you need to form an opinion ? There is a ton of documentation on this man out there . His style hasn't aged well ? He ducked and turned like James Toney was doing up until a few years ago. James did o.k.
Oh there have been men who've watched Foster and Fitz? I think not. Even if they had, which they have not, you do realise in court, witness testimony is considered not particularly accurate and often results in false convictions because of the inaccuracy of the human memory Fitz was fast for his time, boxers seem to have got faster over the decades. Anyway Fitz got outsped by Corbett for 13 rounds of their fight, so he wasn't that quick for his time
So your point is not only that the science of the sport has evolved but that human physical aptitudes have as well. Man is able to punch faster today than 100 years ago. Interesting. This evolution usually takes place either through thousands of years or enhancement drugs. Personally I justthink your talking smack ...
I'm not talking about man's evolution, I'm talking about a sports evolution. Man can run far faster than 100years, why not punch faster? Better punch technique equates to more speed. A higher talent pool with more men competing to be the best, means their are going to be better men based on the odds. Sullivan openly admitted the sport moved on in his life time, it wouldn't be suprising to see it develop beyond that I'm not even saying Foster does punch faster, I just don't know why anyone would claim Fitz punched faster without film to back it up.
Foster, even when he had his man stunned, picked his punches and it appears to me that Fitz did the same. I don't think Bob is given credit for this, whats thought of as his holding on to his punches was really not throwing them at nothing.
Foster was too advanced for Fitz. Foster's jab, combinations, straight punching are things Fitz never really saw before until he fought corbett(who really gave fitz a licking). I think unlike corbett, Foster will take Fitz out early before Fitz manages to adjust and time foster to land the big knockout punch. Fitz stands straight up, leans back to avoid punches, and keeps his hands by his waist...I just don't see how he will be able to avoid a long foster jab or left hook.
And Foster leans forward, does nothing to avoid punches, and often keeps his hands hanging out in front of him.
Very few mothers under 195 pounds could take Foster's left hook power without kissing the canvas........... Fitz would became a canvas kisser, as well......... Cheers... MR.BILL