Bob Fitzsimmons vs Evander Holyfield

I give Fitz a strong chance. Fitz had enormous strength inherited from his blackmith days and photos of the day do not do his upper body justice, as for leg power Evander has the skinniest legs in higher division history, not much in this battle,

 

Since somebody brought him up, what about:

Fitzsimmons vs. Naseem Hamed, catchweights?

 

no fighter 100 years ago makes it past the 3rd round against Holy.

 

if you can't understand that evander wins this easy, you need to study another sport.

 

If you think any lineal HW champ beats another 'easily', you need to study another sport.*

*especially when that champ is a shoe in for top 10 greatest ever

 

Didn't Liston beat Patterson easily?

And for that matter, didn't Ali beat Liston easily?

Didn't Louis blitz Schmeling in a single round?



Holyfield would batter Fitzsimmons, and its pretty evident just by watching them on tape. Doesn't change Fitz's status as a top 10 ATG P4P, there's a size difference here and fighters should be judged for what they were for their era, but there's no really no disputing it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTi-o7Wl7Cc[/ame]

 

"ruby Bob's" best and perhaps only chance to win would be to land the solar plexis punch, and trust me when i tell you that when who get hit hard enough there you will go down and not be able to get up for about a minute, I don't care who you are.

But outside of that happening i don't see it as being much of a contest. The guys that fitz fought were primative in style and had nowhere near the ability of holyfield.

 

"Ruby Rob" ko's holyfield in 8 after a wonderfull display of defenseive skills, that holy never even knew existed, stemming from his old masters stance.

i also believe there to be much drawing and fainting, some good wrestling with the freckled wonder suprisingly wearing holy out, and some very awkward yet swift foot work from the Cornishman that would paint a new picture of boxing in the earlier century for any one watching.

 

I'm one of the few who felt Dwight M. Qawi deserved a draw in fight # 1 of '86 against Evan Fields.... I know Holy landed lotsa' patty-cake shots as well as hard punches too, but Qawi pressed Holy hardcore and got off with some serious leather himself.... A great, great fight at 190 pounds.... The best ever to date....

Me thinks 1986 Qawi would give Bob Fitz all he could handle as well.....

MR.BILL:hat

 

These threads are just a complete and utter embarrassment.That people can watch the limited amount of footage that exists of these boxers that fought over a hundred years ago,and claim - with a straight face - that these guys were capable of beating legitimately great fighters like Evander Holyfield - it's cringeworthy stuff,quite frankly.The sport and the athlete's that participated in it clearly developed and improved a great deal over the first half of the last century.


I don't agree that new is necessarily better,and I happen to think a great deal of the "talent" around today pales in comparison to what was around,ten,twenty,thirty years ago.But we're talking about a near century's difference here.And the film that exists of these old,old,old timers doesn't exactly paint them in a positive light.

 

Some durable journeymen lasted more than three rounds against Holyfield.

In fact I don't think he ever stopped a world class fighter in less than three rounds except by DQ.

Did you even think abouyt this sentence before posting it?

 

Douglas more so flopped like a whale inside 3 rds back in '90.......... Douglas did eat Holy's right, but Douglas' effort to rise sucked weenie....

Holy waxed Seamus McDonaugh in 1990 somewhere around the 4th stanza....

MR.BILL:bbb

 

I'd be awfully suprised if the Fitzsimmons of 1890's beat the Holyfield of 1990's.

If we're talking how they might have done if they'd come along at the same time and developed in analogy to how they'd developed in their own times, that's more of an argument.