Bob Fitzsimmons vs Joe Frazier

I've always felt that there should be a separate forum respecting boxers and their era's pre date X. It works in so many ways.

 

What's really funny is people used to say how Holyfield was too small to compete vs. the likes of Louis, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, and others. Holyfield would be a giant in most eras. Norton and Holyfield were very similar in size and Holyfield was much more durable... anyway, getting off topic a little.

 

Holyfield ended up a very solid heavyweight and put the weight on very scientifically and effectively. He ended up strong, powerful and durable in the division.

 

I see your point, and I'll support it in part by stating that yes, I've seen and could find amateurs who look better than Foster.

A counter to that point that supports you further is that amateur fights aren't the professional ranks, and that's where both Foster and Fitz were effective, despite looking less-than-impressive to some.

I see Foster as having a better, more sophisticated style.

As for using the last fight of Frazier's career as a template, it's not fair because his flame burned out quicker than perhaps any of the fighters mentioned in this thread because of his style and wars he went through. Even so, I'd still pick that Frazier to overwhelm and flatten Fitz. At least the Fitz I see on film.

And no. I see nothing impressive about Fitz' fighting style or effectiveness. Frazier getting bounced off the ring multiple times by Foreman isn't quite an "impressive performance", but neither is Fitz' style, win or lose.

 

Fitz had his wars with Choynski, Corbett and Sharkey I. The difference is that he finished them off and quckly. He had an awful lot more fights than Frazier had, maybe about 5 times as many fights, so why would you consider that Frazier was more aged and further removed from his prime, just because he performed better.


The differences in era is a valid argument. But, you just cant judge across era's, in any way except by comparing what guys actually did in their own era. Anything else is ridiculous. Muhammed Ali was the fastest boxer and had the best chin in his own era. He was a solid hitter although had some fundamental flaws, do way say that he cant compete with the Lennox and the Klits? Realistically, these guys didnt lose to anyone this small unless they had KO Power. But you cant just write him off on this. Do we say that because he leaned back and often lied on the ropes, he couldnt win today? We dont because he beat the best of his era.

Fitz is the same. Someone scoffed at Tom Sharkey earlier. Frazier was essentially the third best fighter of his generation. So was Sharkey! Frazier lost to the best fighter of his generation 2-1 in three close fighters (ali). Sharkey lost to the best fighter of his generation (Jeffries) 2-0 in two close wars. (Plus he did defeat Corbett who was aged but similar status to Ali). Both were outclassed and KOd twice by the second best fighter of their generation and best KO fighters of their era (Foreman and Fitz). If you remove the weights (which some argue is mostly to do with the availability of steroids and others argue has to do with a change in the ruleset), Fitz really did KO a carbon copy of Frazier in skills and class level, twice when he KOd Sharkey (one was decnically a dq loss though). Yes, the added weight and possibly power makes a big difference, but if anyone has proved they have the styles advantage, it is Fitz. Frazier has never fought anyone remotely like Fitz, unless you want to try to compare Fitz to Foreman.

 

Well when was Fitzsimmons prime?
He was possibly a little past his best when he first defended against Jeffries.Fitz was then nearly 37, he had not fought in 2 years and that only 2 rds against a nobody.
The best BIG man Fitz faced while he was anywhere near his best was Jeff ,Jeffries was 206 to Fitz's 167lbs 39 lbs and a month short of 25 years old.
Jeffries survived some heavyshots and, kod skinny Bob in the 11th,3 years later, now all but 40, after punching Jeffries face into hamburger Bob was kod in the 8th when his hands were too wrecked to continue.

Jeffries scaled 219 to Fitz's 172lbs for that one,47lbs disadvantage for Fitz.
Evidence suggests that the really big powerful class heavies would trouble Fitz mightily.
Frazier certainly would be on Fitz's case from the outset ,come forward and throw being his style.
Could Fitz keep him out?
Could he hit hard enough and, often enough to hurt Joe ,and make him wary of charging in?
Possibly a lot depends on how you think Fitz would adapt to a bob and weave 200lbs plus swarmer who had pretty fast hand speed too.

Jeffries, by all accounts, did not exert constant pressure on his opponents ,neither was he especially skillful at using his reach,height and strength advantages over smaller foes,such as Fitz Corbett and ,Sharkey.
Jeffries took a licking and kept on ticking ,until he wore you down and got you weary and, damaged enough to enable him to land one of his thudding jolts.
So though Fitz was past prime for Jeffries and ,not in the best of shape when he defended his title and even ,allowing for his inactivity,and his 10years age over his burly challenger.

I think Frazier would be all wrong for him and ,would stop the Cornishman, though he might taste the canvas before he finished Bob.

 

I know that Sharkey was not a patch on Frazier, but he was the only fighter who realy won most rounds against Jim Corbett. Jeffries didn't, Fitzsimmons didn't, Sharkey did.

I think that we have credit him as being an effective pressure fighter for this reason.

 

Obviously you have to favour Frazier, but I think his relentless pressure combined with Fitzsimmons’ ludicrous amount of power make for an interesting showdown.