Bob Fitzsimmons vs Joe Frazier

Against a guy like Bob Foster? Foster was hittable, completely lacking in any sort of multifaceted approach and it bore out when the competition and weight increased. There's pretty much no doubt in my mind in a hitting match(and that is what it would be, hunchback doesn't have the skillset or mobility to outbox the man), Fitzsimmons would ice him.

Fitzsimmons would have a lot of trouble against the Ali's, Jones', Quarries etc. Against the guys who'd be right in front of him and let him trade? Frazier? Foster? Lyle, etc? He'd have a great chance.

 

I guess that for you it comes down to how well his skill set can translate across the era's. It is always going to be a stumbling block because we can never definitely prove it one way of the other.

You can argue that Kelly Pavlik would have cleaned out the heavyweight division in Fitzsimmons era and I can never definitely prove you wrong.

 

Let me get this straight, you think he would have a great chance vs Frazier?

You talk of Foster like he's some pathetic street corner hack. The guy is still regarded by some experts to be the pinnacle of 175, and many have him top 5 in history at 175. The guy is a frightening 175 pound assassin.

I see a massive amount of criticism for Foster mostly from lovers of the extremely ancient era's, and much of it is gripes of his lack of success vs heavies of his day.

There's a lot of factors to this, including as Mcvey said his style not boding well whatsoever for fighting bigger men. His lack of success up there is also a bit overstated. Remember too the depth of his era was infinitely greater and the number, say 50 heavyweight was no-where near as removed from the top 20 or so as in Fitz's era.

To have much success up there Foster would have had to put on some serious weight in the correct way and actually campain there. Even then his style would have held him back somewhat.

Foster didn't have a great record against the heavyweights. Who cares? He cut a long term swathe thru the 175 ranks.

 

Exactly. I do not beleive his skillset tranlates. It's not a knock overall, i rank the guy for achievements vs his comtempories - and for that he's one of the GREATS. Remarkable.

 

Yes, I think Fitzsimmons would have a good chance to win, being a lineal heavyweight champion himself and having proven ability against crowding fighters as well as finishing ability much better than anyone he ever faced with perhaps the exception of Foreman.

I talk about Foster as a super super overrated LHW. To me he is not even in the top 10. I'll take the guys who had good competition at 160-175, wins and losses over him, and then i'll take the guys who were dominant and then moved up to make noise at heavy over him.

I do agree that his style was poor for moving up. But you can't disassociate that from Foster's actual ability, if that's the case. Being able to beat fighters of all sizes either through physicality or adjustments is important to me for judgement of greatest. And yes, that includes ability to whip smaller fighters too.

I also think it's nonsensical to make sweeping statements about an era s being 'infinitely better in depth' when we're lacking in information and footage on one.

 

I've now watched as much film on Fitz as I could find, which is not much more than I've already seen. He fights the same against Corbett as he does the Jeffries film- off-balance and about 80 feints to one punch.

I really can't see how he'd be able to do anything against anyone mentioned. Foster looks 100 times better on film than Fitz, so I disagree with Boilermaker's statement about that.

You can go on youtube and find hundreds of films of amateur fighters and fighters you've never heard of that look better than Fitz. Then you can go look up street fights with turds who would get obliterated in the ring and Fitz' style looks more like them than the amateurs and nobodies.


Against Frazier and Lyle? I give him about as good of a chance as I would have.

 

There is one aspect of Fitzsimmons skillset which surely must translate into some sort of results.

His finishing ability.

He is quite simply without peer among fighters of his weight, in terms of ability to dismantle elite opponents in the 175-200lb size range.

I think that he would most likley have taken Zora Folley for example.

 

That said, his accomplishments speak for themselves. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Corbett and Jeffries too...

At least with Greb, who there's no fighting footage of, we have ample footage of the fighters he beat, and they look good. They look like they belong in the ring with and being mentioned with the other greats...

 

Seeing as how pretty much the only comprehensible film we have of him is when he's like 45 years old I don't know how you can draw conclusive results about him being a bum or whatever.

As for the feinting.... I believe that has been addressed in this topic already. Throwing loads of punches in a 25+ round fight rarely lends itself to victory, as does leaving yourself open to said punches when they're being made with those gloves.

And as for Corbett: I think he looks great in the Tunney spars despite his age, which you should see if you havent.

 

Yes, but the fighters that Greb beat come allong when we start to get film that reflects whats happening in front of the camera.

Also, Corbett and Fitzsimmons were both highly unorthodox fighters who relied upon certain physical atributes, by the standards of their day. Its a bit like if the only footage we had from this era, was of Joe Calzaghe fighting Roy Jones, and the timing was all over the place.

 

25 round fight or not, all that fist rolling and feinting is exhausting as well. I don't see that as being more economic for your energy levels... Maybe if the guy fought like a less-active Arguello (or some other economical fighter), you'd have a point.


I see Fitz and company doing alot of jumping around, feinting without being on balance and in postition to punch, and pulling straight back and at weird angles that will get you killed against anyone that's on balance themselves and possesses the reflexes to counterpunch.

No disrespect to Mr. Fitzsimmons, for my analysis, but he simply gets embarassed and stopped against anyone mentioned, with the exception of perhaps Foster, who I believe would whip him, although Fitz has a chance.


I didn't and wouldn't call him a bum. Perhaps the film of him is as an aging fighter, but he was whipping Jeffries until he got himself caught from what I understand. And correct me if I'm wrong, but he was also very competitive until catching Corbett with the solar plexus punch, so he couldn't have been that far gone if he did that well against two others regarded as being ATG's...

 

Well if you're feinting more, then you're drawing more, leaving openings for someone to try and lead through or land something. That's very much a part of the black dynamite counterpunching you see in the Langfords, Gans of the era following Fitzsimmons. Roy Jones does a lot of that too, Ali and Hamed as well. Feint your way in to lead, keep your hands low but block what you can, and then provide openings and succeed with your superior speed, timing, and/or technique.

Actually Corbett was beating his ass by his own account and fitght reports. In a rematch he would have probably beaten Fitzsimmons, who declined one. He was 34 in that fight, well past prime. And 36 against Jeffries. That is nowhere near prime no matter who you are. I'm saying the only decent quality film of him is when he's way past it against Lang in 1909. And that's not really very conclusive is it.

 

Frazier breaks Fitzsimmons in two. And in about two rounds. Maybe less.

 

:wtf

 

Don't get me wrong, Fitz is a favorite of mine but did he ever step in the ring weighing above 170? Even if you give him the benefit of "modern nutrition/training methods" when did he ever exhibit the ability to deal with the sustained pressure that he'd encounter from a peak('67-'71) Frazier. If your answer to this is somehow yes, who did he fight that even remotely resembles the nightmare that was Smokin Joe?