Bob Fitzimmons v Harry Greb

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Stevie G, Jan 24, 2014.


  1. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    10,974
    5,436
    Feb 10, 2013
    I wouldnt compare what Fitz did with a smaller tuburculer Dempsey as indicative of what he would have done against Greb.
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,825
    29,270
    Jun 2, 2006
    We can't just take Fitz's fights as a middle weight as a guide , because he could make that weight when he was boxing the big men.How he fought Corbett is just as relevant.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,369
    48,742
    Mar 21, 2007
    I do think that Greb is at an advantage as far as stamina goes. But I think people are trying to have it both ways a bit. I don't think it's reasonable to say on one hand that Fitz will fight in his conservative, filmed style whilst Greb fights with the ultra-high workrate that made him famous (in part) and have the 45 round distance favour Greb. That's obviously silly.

    I think that your other point is very very hard to quantify. I think there's just no way of telling what Fitz might do. Say he fights conservatively though, for arguments sake. Is it a guarantee that Greb makes him fight more quickly?

    I don't think so, necessarily. Fitz allowed himself to be hit and raided by far, far harder punchers than Greb whilst awaiting his chances to counterpunch, low workrate, small moves. I don't think he'd be particularly bothered by Greb's punches based upon what I know now, not early doors anyway, I think he could just allow himself to be outworked whilst he looks to establish some timing, which may be literally impossible but may not - and Fitz, possibly, only has to be right once, twice, three times.

    Furthermore, I think it's possible that Greb, alive to that danger, may find himself being slowed.

    But i'd say this on your point - it's likely that whatever style Fitz fights in he is going to be forced to take punches or to work faster. I'd say that one of those things has to be true.

    I agree. My point isn't that Greb would fight as he did at middleweight, but that the way people in this thread, certainly at the beginning, were presuming Fitz would fight Greb weren't seeing, or weren't communicating, the entire picture. Fitz has a skillset that wasn't demonstrated on film, if we allow newspaper reports. The notion that Fitz is some sort of punching lampost is not reasonable.

    So I was saying that we should "jsut take Fitz's fights as a middle weight as a guide," quite the opposite, I was saying that people shouldn't only take Fitz's filmed performances as a guide.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,369
    48,742
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well, i didn't say that it should be. I was just rejecting your inference that he only boxed more quickly over four and six round distances. That just isn't true, and this world championship fight over the 20 round distance demonstrates that.

    Fitz was also described as being as "Fresh as a lark" at the end of the completed rounds (W RTD 13). Fitzsimmons himself described his condition as "not even thoroughly warmed up."
     
  5. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,636
    1,909
    Dec 2, 2006
    Seldom is there any mention of Fitz being tired. In the first Sharkey fight he fought a -in some ways-a Greb clone as far as constant pressure was concerned yet stood or got up early between rounds. He was said to appear a little tired at the end of the seventh but then proceeded to KO-and lose-to Tom in the eight. The more I think of this match-up and read the excellent back-and-forth between the posters here the more I like this fantasy contest. Still sticking with Bob despite wavering a few times. We have to remember that most of what we are debating Fitz on is after he was nearly thirty.
     
  6. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,636
    1,909
    Dec 2, 2006
    Below is a quote of Bob's the day before his 1896 fight with Sharkey-might be of interest in how he would have faced up to Greb who was of a similar stature to Tom but lighter and I'm sure quicker. Greb would come in similar to Sharkey fast, rough, jerky and all ansles, the big difference that he would look to get out again while Tom would be waiting there.
    "Fitzsimmons says if Sharkey is quick enough to run In on Joe Choynskl and Jim Corbett, he is probably quick enough to come in on him . This Is the reason Fitzsimmons has been practicing in-fightlng and building up as much as possible. He will be nearly as heavy as the sailor. This, with his strength of side-slashing and upper-cutting, has made him a great favorite with the knowing
    ones. "
     
  7. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,355
    Jun 29, 2007
    Fitz could put a guy out for the count with one blow. He wrecked all sizes from big to small. He beat all styles from , power punchers, aggressive swarmers, and boxers movers. And he thought of in his day perhaps a bit more than Greb was thought of in his.

    KO 2 over Sharkey. KO 1 over Maher. KO via body shot to Corbett. And stoppage via police over Choynski was was a quick one on his feet.

    While Maher was a bit of a glass cannons, Corbett and Sharkey were not. Choysnki some where in between.

    Was Greb's chin better than Sharkey's? I would lean toward no. So Fitz would be able to end things when he lands.

    Greb's was a fast one, but he's also short at 5'8" and would have to reach way up there to tag Fitz to the head. News reads says Greb was aggressive, so a jab and run really wasn't his preferred method of winning. This fight could be a bit like Joe Louis vs Billy Conn.

    ***Greb was pretty much a 12 or 10 round fighter. Shorter fights means you can spend your energy on action which fit well with Greb's style and tactics. If we are talking 15 here, I really like Fitz. 12, I still like Fitz. 10 rounds its close for me, under six rounds, I'll go with Greb
     
  8. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    62,435
    47,619
    Feb 11, 2005
    Greb was only KO'd once, early on, in a career of 300 fights against fighters of all styles and sizes. That's a stellar chin.

    Even though Greb is a few inches shorter, his reach was the same as Bob's. But it's not really about a few inches of limbage. It's about footwork. Harry was fast and elusive with his feet, moving in, out and around his opponents. It's something observers repeated his entire career.

    Yet, Greb was very often picking up the past in the last rounds, such was his stamina in his prime. He started fast and finished faster.

    I understand where you're coming from. Fitzsimmons is a true outlier in terms of talent... and his ability to harness it. Who the hell knows? A dangerous fight for Greb certainly.
     
  9. gentleman jim

    gentleman jim gentleman jim Full Member

    1,640
    56
    Jan 15, 2010
    If only we had some film footage of Greb and Fitz in thier primes then picking a winner would be easier....but we don't. based on the little bit of film there is of Fitzsimmons we can see how he fights but there's nothing on Greb which blows my mind. A MW champion who had 300 fights and is considered one the greatest pound for pound fighters of all time and there's not one film of him in action? Why not? I can only guess how this fight would turn out then...and my guess is Greb. If he's the whirlwind that reports claim he is then barring a sleeper connecting by Bob, Greb hustles and cuffs his way to a decision.