Archie Moore (of the Rocky fight) Vs Bob Fitzsimmons (Of Jeffries II)

Bump, very good hypothetical matchup. I think that Moore was at the higher stage of his career than Fitz in second Jeffries fight, but Bob fought brilliantly against much bigger man and he still wasn't washed up after the fight.

Can't pick here, but I'm super interested in some opinions on this topic.

 

In a 15 rounder, Moore. Anything longer and I have to go with Fitzsimmons, due to distance bouts he competed in.

I'd say Moore was the better fighter, but both were very intelligent observers, and Fitzsimmons obviously has that huge power on his side as an 'equaliser'.

 

Fitz finished most of his 20+rounders before 10th round, I'm not sure he has many bouts over 15. Yeah, he beat Gardner as an old man with bad hands which is extremely impressive but more often than not he didn't try to play long games with opponents.

Moore was probably better defensively but I wouldn't call him better fighter overall. Tough to say as we don't have much of footage from him, but he seemed to be highly tactical fighter who could fight with various styles and approaches. He was also very durable but so was Moore (both lasted similar time against Marciano and Jeffries in compared fights).

 

I meant better in the sense of technique and application, especially fundamentally. I shouldve specified. I'm not saying Fitzs was unskilled (he definitely wasn't), but he had an odd, specialised style that did have vulnerability to it for all it did well (such as power application).

I definitely think Moore could exploit this. Whether he wins against the power is another matter.

 

Moore was awkward fighter himself, it'd all depend on who figures out the other one first.

 

Tough one, I regard Jeffries as better than Moore and Fitzsimmons was destroying him until the knockout.

Moore on the other hand, put up a good fight against Marciano but was clearly outclassed. Then again I regard Marciano more highly than Jeffries

Moore was closer to his prime than Fitz, that balances it out...

I'll take Moore by stoppage in the championship rounds. I think he hits the deck earlier in.

 

Moore by tko late.

 

I'll take this If it's 15 then I'll say Archie get s a point s win .If we're looking at 25 plus , then Bob land's the ko blow .

 

I think that Fitz would struggle with Moore jab which was amazing. At the same time, cross-guard defense against such a devastating puncher isn't the greatest idea. Archie said his arms hurt when Marciano attacked his guard. Fitz could do the same to him.

 

Fitz. Moore didn't have the chin to take it.

 

Don't go on a book or web sound bytes I have read the fight reports. The rounds won are about even, with Jeffries most certainly winning the 7th and 8th up to the knock out Fitz did land hard for sure, but this was not a 6-2 or 7-1 fight in rounds. More like 2 rounds each, with 4 other rounds that were about even.

Fitz broke the rules and used electrical tape in his wraps, which can make a fist as hard as a rock, and it's debatable if Fitz tampered with his gloves. When Jeffries who fought Fitz before without cuts asked to see Fitz gloves after the fight in the ring, Fitz quickly tossed the gloves into the crowd. This is true, and its something a guilty man would do this.

 

Moore had good enough chin to absorb some hard shots and he had great defense. Of course Fitz could KO any opponent, but Archie didn't have bad chin at all and he fought very well when hurt.

 

I like Moore. I think he is just so much more proven against tough opposition. Much is made of Fitz's supposed superior punching power, but seriously, I would question that after checking records and weights. As far as I can see, of anyone who can be considered a name opponent, only Gus Ruhlin seems to have been above 185 at about 195. Corbett, Maher, Sharkey, and Choynski were under 185.

Fitz's did beat some huge men off the weights, but Millard Zender (300 lbs.) & Charley Puff and Abe Cougle (230 lbs. each) had no recorded fights and so seem to have been just tough men amateurs. Only Ed Dunkhorst at 6' 3 1/2" and at a best guess weight of 235 (off his weights against Frank Childs (230-173) and Joe Choynski (230-162), both losses) was at trial horse level, winning 16 of his 32 fights, and holding an upset win over Bob Armstrong.

In contrast, Moore fought quite a few more big guys and did well against them. Abel Cestac, Embrell Davidson, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, Willie Bean, James Parker, and Alejandro Lavorante were tall men for the time in condition at about 210 or above and either testing blocks or top contenders. Moore beat them all and stopped all except Valdes. In fairness, like Fitz, (and some others like Dempsey and Baer) Moore as a world class fighter did get the ring with unworthy opposition like pro wrestlers, but his depth of good opposition is among the best.

Another point that has been made is that Fitz was a triple champion. Yes, and it is remarkable, but Moore managed to become the #1 contender at both middle and heavy, and of course was the longest reigning light-heavy champion. He never got a shot at the middle crown before outgrowing the division, with Zale in the military. At heavy he had to go through Marciano. I don't think Fitz would have ever been heavy champion if he had to go through Jeffries. So I don't see this really as an edge for Fitz.

And for me the bottom line is boxing just improved so much, remarkable as he was in the 1890's, Fitz would have been in an entirely different boxing world in the 1950's. It is like taking Don Hutson from the 1930's NFL and putting him the 1980's NFL. Would he still be an outstanding receiver? Jerry Rice from the 1980's to the 1930's? Hard to imagine him not standing out back then.

 

Don Hutson would do just fine today. He had excellent speed, 9.7 100 yard dash time on what was surely less than optimal track conditions. He was a man among boys. In fact, with today's pass happy offenses where the defender can't even look askance at the receiver, he would probably be a top 5 producer.

That said, I agree with the general tenor of your statement. I watch footage of Fitz (and granted there is not much) and even time corrected and stabilized, I just don't see how he would stand up against a post-1930's fighter. Given time to adjust, he would probably rise to the top but I can not give those allowances in these discussions.