Bob Fitzsimmons: Top 10 p4p all time?

I saw Gardiner on film years ago. Jim Jacobs had his 12 round ko of Root. I think he would have to be considered fairly skilled for his time and place--understanding that skills have improved over the years.

Here is a quote from the 1976 Ring Record Book describing Hall-of-Famer Jack Root and his era

"Old timers look upon the present crop of pugists as a mediocre lot compared to what they had seen in the golden era of pugilism. They point to the days of Kid McCoy, Jack Root, Tommy Ryan, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, George Gardner, Tommy West, Joe Walcott, Sam Langford, and Stanley Ketchel, among other greats, who fought both in the middleweight and light heavyweight ranks at a time when the field was so heavily loaded with top talent that every one of the above seemed good enough to sit on the throne."

Nat Fleischer seemed to think highly of Gardiner.

 

This content is protected

Sounds alot like the middleweight Joe Louis, no?

 

Gans himself was the prototype for Louis and Gans emulated Bob Fitzsimmons.

So yes Louis is an evolutionary development of Bob Fitzsimmons.

 

I guess its true.....you learn something new everyday. I appreciate the information.

 

I have a 2min 21sec version of the film, and no, I'm not impressed by what I see. Root was actually more skillful fighter than Gardner, but not as tough.

I'm using contemporary reports to get an impression about him, not the ones written so far later.
Fleischer thinks highly of just about anyone who was before his time, his ratings are laughable.

 

Ok, I'll give a tad and call him a cruiserweight?

 

If you want to say that Gardner does not amount to much because boxing skills have improved so much--okay. But Gardner was defeating champions in Root, Hart, and Walcott. He was obviously one of the better fighters of his era and a worthy champion in time and place.

I personally think, off the films, that there was an upward surge of skill and that most of the fighters of the turn of the century appear far less impressive than those of later years. I would not myself use that as a reason to dismiss a triple champion such as Fitzsimmons or his unique accomplishments.

 

I don't discount Fitz either to any great extent... I just would have preferred to see all he accomplished on film. Since that will never be possible, we are left with the thoughts of those who watched the fights.

Weren't there some comtemporaries that thought Fitz would defeat Jeffries? That in itself should tell a person something regarding Fitz's abilities.

It's often an off the wall matter to accept a boxing fan's view regarding any fighter. That much is obvious through the opinions written on this very forum.

If I were to be honest, the tiny little dude Fitz did way too much to be ignored p4p... even if I can't watch everything he did on film.

 

On film Gardner shows little if any defense, no footwork, no body movement, both hands kept low, poor judgement of distance at mid and long range, poor balance, no straight punching, no feints. He's just standing in front of Root and slugging it out with hooks and swings. Root shows some side-steps or stepping back, body movement, angles.

 

I was aware of your light heavy statement earlier on.... believe it or not (if you don't believe, oh well)

Is there a fight video available regarding Fitz vs Gardiner? If not, the argument is fairly limited. Gardner, as you call him, could have been far different from one fight to another. Just an assumption, but it MAY be an accurate one.

Anyway, if you've got a film, zap it to me... I'll be happy to watch.

 

I Agree. Root looks pretty good. Gardner must have had some power to defeat him. I agree with OLD FOGEY. Gardner is an accomplished fighter with a good ring record and some big wins.