Bob Fitzsimmons Appreciation Thread

Why?

Fitz was at an age where most good young prospects hit the world class level. He just proved that he was the best fighter in his country. (in those days, this was pretty much as good as a lightweight could do). In reality, Britain/Europe, America and Australia/NZ were pretty much the equivalent of the three alphabet titles we had. Fitz beat the best Kiwi fighters, all by knockout, in the Jem Mace tournament. It is interesting to note that the World's first ever lightweight champion had not yet begun to box! So, i doubt he was standing in Fitz' way. In fact, i doubt anyone could throw up a name to challenge him, from those days. If they did, i am sure that their record, also would be based on beating the best fighters in the world at their competition.

Second, note that it was just 3 months after the lightweight tournament that Fitz fought in the middleweight tournament. We dont know his weight, but is it not almost certain that after just three months, he would still be at the lightweight limit? And even if he wasnt,he certainly was still capable of making the limit and performing at a similar level. In 2 days, he beat 5 opponents, all by KO. Tell me another lightweight at the time (or close to lightweight) who could replicate that feat or something similar. As a lightweight (or virtual lightweight), he won a national middleweight championship. That is a huge feat, right there. No one else of the time that i know of (at lightweight) could have achieved that.

It would actually be a good project (sadly beyond my research capabilities) to find lightweights of the era who had a decent claim to a world championship when Fitz did. One guy who probably had a good claim, just after Fitz was a fellow who was born in Ireland in 1862, and who debuted (according to records) in 1883, just after Fitz' lightweight exploits. He was 6 months older than Fitz, and later on after he had been the dominant middleweight champion for years, he did actually fight Fitz. I speak, of course, of the Non Pareil Jack Dempsey. He was an all time great, but when the finally met, Fitz outclassed him. Surely Fitz' dominance (especially as his record continued so long after) was such to suggest that it is highly doubtful, at any age that Dempsey could have beaten Fitz.

Starting to answer my own question here, but George Fulljames came to US at around this time, and tried to challenge their best. He may have had a claim. At 5' 4 i cant see him troubling Fitz. He did fight Dempsey, and ended up getting knocked out.

Harry Gilmore was another who probably had a good claim. He looks to have been an undefeated prospect. IN 1882 he had a huge result with a 3rd round ko over the world class middleweight and one time John L opponent, Dominic McCaffery. By 1884 though, Gilmore had drawn with Fulljames and lost to Sam Biddle, who himself had been beaten by fulljames.

Jem Carney probably had the best claim. He was the English champion and he seems to have been proclaimed (at least in later years) as world champion. At 5'4 it is hard to see him beating a young fitz. But what is even worse for him, is that in 1882 he was locked in jail for manslaughter. Hard to be the world champion from jail, and could anyone really see him coming off a 6 month layoff and fighting and beating Fitz with such a reach disadvantage, even if Fitz was outgrowing the weight and would have been malnourished?

Is there anyone else out there who (with full hindsight) was likely to beat Fitz at lightweight?

 

Just a little interesting tidbit, to add to the things about Fitzy that leave you speachless, did you know that he was only 5 years younger than John L Sullivan! And when he won his NZ lightweight and middleweight crowns, John L Sullivan had not yet won the world heavyweight championship from Paddy Ryan!

 

Didnt know that Boilermaker.

You make a good case, I didnt know there wasnt a universally recognised champion at that time, so yes he would have definitly had means to call himself the best.

 

I suspect that the surviving portion of Fitzsimmons record only touches the surface.

 

Fitz was an exceptional fighter , one of the top pound for pound punchers that ever lived and so underrated today it's a joke ...

 

If the dates on this article are correct,
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZTR19171027.2.24

it means that (a year before the lightweight tournament win is mentioned on cyberboxingzone) he fought and beat future world heavyweight title challenger Herbert Slade, presumably he was at or near the lightweight limit, at this point in time.

Obviously, Fitz' case to recognition as the Best welterweight in the world is virtually irrefutable. At 150lbs the middleweight title was as close to the World Welterweight title as you could get. Fitz, of course, won this by KO.

In reality, at various points in time, Fitz could quite concievably have been the World Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight champion, and if you want to be serious, if they existed and he wanted them, he could have probably claimed every single title between these weights.

 

Reading this article,


http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=WH19081126.2.47.6

it seems that Bob Fitzsimmons victory (after he fought injured against jack johnson) against Jim Paul seems a little underated. It sounds like Paul was one of the better fighters in cannada, maybe one of the best, and the locals were confident the aging Fitz would be used as a stepping stone. It seems that the Northern Country's best did better than we today seem to think, as he might have lasted a round, and probably might have even been carried to an ND, if he hadnt upset Fitz by cutting him! Not a bad win to sneak in between his theatre appearances.

 

I suppose this will tick a few people off,never been a fan of Fitz.I respect what he accomplished,you can not ignore that.But one could argue that he got in a lucky shot against Corbett when he was getting beat badly,and the fact Fitz himself must have thought that ,because he refused to give Corbett a rematch under the ruse that he hated Corbett.After all,Fitzsimmons was given his rematch when he lost to Jeffries.Fitz was a very good fighter,but certainly not a top ten heavyweight that Nat Fleischer seemed to think he was.

 

To be fair, some historians argue that Fitzsimmons beat Corbett tacticaly. That his strategy was to take Corbett into the later rounds and wear him out.

 

B

Bob Fitzimmons just might have been the best fighter from lightweight to 175 , were he fighting in his primes...I believe he is not given this credit in the lower weights,was he was in the publics eyes, thought as being built like a heavyweight, because of his slender waist, pipestem legs, on top of a massive pair of heavyweight shoulders...
Even though he dominated from youth every weight class he was in, Fitz was always percieved by most of boxing as a heavyweight, in his astonishing career...Look what this amazing 155-165 fighter accomplished in his thirties, in the heavyweight division !!A fistic marvel was old Fitz...

 

Great fighter

 

Fitz says he had 300 fights. One night in Chicago he Ko'd seven local fighters in 19 rounds.

 

Might have been including all his exhibitions with the likes of Jeffries, Dan Hickey, Jack Stelzner etc.

 

No, he said Prize fights, not exhibitions.

Just another small fact to add to the bow of Bob Fitzsimmons.

He is one one of only 8 heavyweight champions who won their title by beating a champion who was more than a year younger. The others were

Jersey Joe Walcott
Ingemar Johansen
Sonny Liston
Muhammed Ali
James Buster Douglas
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis

The idea being that by beating a champion who is younger, you are pretty much establishing superiority over them, as opposed to the usual way where the new champion beats an older champion, and relies on the assistance of Father time. Fitz didnt need it.

 

Wasn't he that ***** who had something like thongs in one of his fights?