Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Dick Tiger

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by laxpdx, Mar 12, 2010.


Page 1 of 3
  1. laxpdx

    laxpdx Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,921
    77
    Oct 1, 2006
    As freakishly hard as Fitz hit, can Richard possibly win, being he was a hell of a hitter himself?
     
    laxpdx, Mar 12, 2010
    laxpdx, Mar 12, 2010
    #1
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    Ruleset? Is it a best for best thing or are you talking one existing in the other's era? Because that's a big deal in this one.
     
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2010
    McGrain, Mar 12, 2010
    #2
  3. Longhhorn71

    Longhhorn71 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,714
    3,456
    Jan 6, 2007
    From 160 to 200 lbs, Fitz could knock out anyone he could hit.
     
    Longhhorn71, Mar 13, 2010
    Longhhorn71, Mar 13, 2010
    #3
  4. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    Really?

    I think Fitzsimmons could adapt to more modern ruleset pretty well and Tiger would do well in an earlier ruleset as his strength is immense.
     
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    #4
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007

    IMO they are both MADE for the opposite ruleset, they would be fine, but if Fitzsimmons is stepping out of a time machine and into a 1960's ring, that's very different from being suited to a given style - you see?

    One thing worth thinking about is that Tiger can't KO Fitz - but Fitz can KO tiger. So given that this is the case, Tiger favours the shorter distance. Hard to imagine Tiger outworking Fitz for 20 rounds, for example, without coming a cropper.

    As an aside, would you pick any man ever weighing in at 152 or less to beat the Fitz that beat Dempsey, under his own ruleset? I think Fitz might be the best fighter in history head to head.
     
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    #5
  6. turpinr

    turpinr Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,227
    1,253
    Feb 6, 2009
    i think tiger is overrated but would still beat rudy robert
     
    turpinr, Mar 13, 2010
    turpinr, Mar 13, 2010
    #6
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    That's a very interesting claim. Why?
     
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    #7
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007

    Well, who do you pick to beat him at 152lbs under the ruleset that governed Fitz and Dempsey? Demspey was past his best but he was also seen as absolutley peerless. And he was absolutley crushed. Fitz was a quality boxer with enough power to stop big HW's. Hard to make a pick a ww/small mw against him.
     
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    #8
  9. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    I think both men had styles that transcended their eras. Fitzsimmons is basically a counter-puncher, he is static but he would even do well in a modern ring IMO.

    Again Tiger strong, tough as hell with a big workrate.

    Thing is Fitzsimmons at times struggled when there was actual fighting (according to Fleaman) he was more of a boxer who would pick his shots by countering but when there was a trade off he wasnt as effective. I think if Tiger gets into a mid range distance he dominates with his strength and ability whilst trading.

    Fitz however bosses it when he gets time and is at range, Tiger is going to have to take alot of punishment to get inside.

    It is a good point. I automatically thought Emile Griffith, just his chin might let him down, but stylistically I think he would beat Fitzs fairly well.
     
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    #9
  10. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Hm, I think Walker and the Barbados Deamon would have a very good chance. Don't know if I would make them a favourite though. What about Tommy Ryan? Griffith, who GPater picked, seems to be a good call although.
     
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    #10
  11. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    Just can Griffiths chin stand up too it, he looks to have had a decent chin but afew knockouts scatter the record and he was susceptible to one big punch.
     
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    GPater11093, Mar 13, 2010
    #11
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    Couter-puncher is ok, but he certainly wasn't a counter-puncher against Dempsey...as Janitor has pointed out and as his In The Ring so firmly surmised, he doesn't have an easy style to peg. I like trap-smith, i've just sort of made a style up to him - but all your head to head wonders have a bit of that, a dose of that "wtf" about them.

    There is something to this, possibly, but that's the thing with the trap-smith (copywrite McGrain) style, you want someone to fight aggressively. There is more than one contest involving Fitz where he was being swarmed and the other guy just dropped like he had been shot.




    Well he's a horrible style for anyone. I think it would be a very boring fight with Fitz maybe shading a decision on the aggression?
     
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    #12
  13. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    True but he also beat a few very good punchers, no Fitz though. He would be very weary of Fitz' power and had the skills to avoid it.
     
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    #13
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,015
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007

    Ryan is a decent call, but Dempsey might be as clever and versatile and he got out-boxed, out-fought. I don't like the Walker or the Walcott calls because I just don't think a pressure fighter at these weights has any hope. They are getting hit properly at some point. Fitz is a Foster, let's not forget.
     
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    McGrain, Mar 13, 2010
    #14
  15. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    I think higher of Ryan than of Dempsey. I think he has a shout of being a Top3 p4p fighter before the 20s - alongside Fitz and Langford. Dempsey was very good when he fought Fitz, people thought he would beat everyone that night but Fitz. But he also was past it. I think Ryan was better prime for prime and we speaking of a prime Ryan instead of a slightly past-it Dempsey. Would be a great fight.

    Walker is no face-first brawler though. He has some skills for himself and a very very good chin. Just look how much punishment Schmeling put on a bloated, past it but still very good Walker before he succumbed. And Schmeling was a very hard puncher himself. I think Walker's combination of pressure, skill and chin could very well see him prevail over Fitz.

    Barbados Joe I think was stronger than Fitz, punches nearly as hard, has a good chin and some skills. I'd pick Fitz but in a trilogy I think Joe would take one and it could very well be the fight in question here. Fitz could be KOed and Walcott was a man who could KO him.
     
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    bodhi, Mar 13, 2010
    #15
Page 1 of 3