Bob Fitzsimmons vs Joey Archer You know the drill answer and reason/explanation closes in exactly a month
i see archer boxing his way to a good lead but fitzsimmons eventually lands a power shot and wins by ko around the 11th .not sure though could quite easily be more modern fighter is to skillful for fitzsimmons,but i will stick with fitzsimmons
Fitz caught up to Corbett eventually ,and though Archer was a very good boxer and durable he did not have great power.Archer makes Fitz look silly for a few rounds,but soner or later gets cornered and takes a numbing shot ,probably to the body,slowing his legs considerably,once in a position where Fitz can land it would be goodnight for Archer,imo.
Joey Archer was obviously a very good fighter and he beat some very good fighters. But he is stepping in the ring with the hardest hitting middleweight of all time. Admittedly, Archer has beaten pound for pound greats before, as he did when he beat ray robinson. But, this is different, Fitzsimmons was too classy and too big a hitter for Archer. Archer, when you dissect his record, was 1-1 with Don Fulmer, 1-1 with 1-1 with Joe Gonzales and 0-2 with Emile Griffith. His big wins simply are not enough to put him in Fitzsimmons league and he would be relying on fitz having a bad night which didnt often happen. Fitz on the other hand, won the middle title against an All time great (arguably as good a quality win as Robinson) in the non pareil Jack Dempsey. Fitz would not lose to a middleweight, after this point, and while he largely fought against light heavys and heavys, it is worth noting that even at his heaviest weights, he was very close to the middleweight limit. I think Fitz has an iron jaw at Middleweight and i dont see how archer can hurt him. I also dont see how Archer can cope with Fitz' counterpunching and power. Fitz wins big. KO 3.
Fitz would take away Joey's movement with his bodywork in fairly short order. Without his legs, Archer's a sitting duck.
It's just a power thing for me, Archer can get ahead, he can take the fight some distance as he's no weak man, but Fitzimmons would probably win by spectacular ko.
Fitz by ko. I suppose one could argue that skills improved a great deal in the 70 years between Fitz and Joey, but I think on this sort of poll one has to go by who was the better man in his own era, especially when the gap is as great as in this case.
Fitz is overrated, but he is better than Archer. I will tell you this. For the first couple rounds, Archer with his modern skills will make the barenuckle style (chin out hands low no head movement) Fitz look very very crude. Fitz by Knockout