So you have excuses for fighters you like, but you don't use the same criteria for the ones you have agenda against. Got it, thanks. Yeah, cause modern fighters don't do that. They all fight perfectly. Sometimes; I wonder how they can be knocked out when they use such a perfect techique.
I’m going for freckled bob. Nobody hit harder than Jackson but bob was a tough mofo who went through more weight classes.
PhillyPhan69 liked Bujia's post so you know right there, they're not the brightest tools in the kit box.
Well, who woulda won it, Fitzsimmons or Jackson? Jackson was a very hard puncher at 160 in modern times, but when you read about Fitz, you realize he was no slouch either through the weight divisions in his day. Might just give the edge to Bob.
Fitzsimmons fought in a different time with different rules and a different skill set that wouldn't be viable today, otherwise present boxers would be fighting this way right? But they aren't, for good reasons. I happen to think that fighting technique has come a LONG way in the last 100 years with access to more information and sharing of knowledge. Look at how many Kung Fu and Akido masters are literally getting their asses handed to them by MMA fighters. That's no accident. It's called progress. I know Fitzsimmons was called 'by far the hardest puncher in boxing' in his time but we are talking about a time where information was much less readily available and it was easier to exaggerate or hide behind smoke and mirrors. I can go onto YouTube and see quite easily what a devastating puncher Jackson was. I am sure Fitszimmons was a very hard puncher too but he was also stopped several times which means if Jackson lands it's likely to have a big impact. So was Jackson but I think with modern skill sets and techniques Jackson lands first. Not only that but also he looks much faster and Bob is wide open to headshots. Jackson by KO in the first 3 rounds.
