Bob Fitzsimmons vs Julian Jackson 160lbs

Is that why so many fighters at end of 12 or less rounds nowadays are running on fumes.
Have you seen the training that the likes of Fitz did.

 

Fitz was great in his own time, but in his time boxing was still very primitive and crude.

 

It was an a period where there was far less participants and the craft was clearly unrefined and developing

 

Give some examples of that, because you're saying it all the time without backing it up.

 

Was Joe Gans primitive and crude? Or Packey McFarland? Sam Langford?

 

There were far less participants in the fledgling sport it was then. The more money that the sport made in later years, attracted far more people. Anyone who's boxed in the last 70 years will look at Fitz and Jeffries and call them rank amateurs, which is actually complimentary if you look at them.

 

Show me your sources, show me some stats. All you do is talk.

 

From what I've seen, I think yes. But they were all less crude than Fitz. Also the fighters you mentioned fought in an era where the sport started to advance technique wise

 

No, they didn't. Fitzsimmons was top contender when Gans was top contender.

Fitzsimmons wasn't crude, he was unconventional. He said that he had over 300 fights, he had enormous experience. He just knew how to fight to win the fight, even if that doesn't work for most boxers.

 

When Gans went pro Fitzsimmons had already been fighting for 8 years

 

So 8 years is a huge difference in sport improvement? Come on...

 

Not huge no, but I do think Gans and some of the fighters of his time look better technically than Fitz

 

Which just shows that what he did was successful against them.

 

I'm not sure about "there were far less participants " in the old days. There were only a couple of sports in the late 1800's till the mid 1900's. Cricket, tennis, golf, rugby, soccer in the UK. Tennis, golf, baseball in the US. There were boxing gyms on many street corners in American cities, and numerous "gentleman clubs" in the UK that taught boxing. The most well known and best paid athletes in the early 1900s were boxers. Boxing was a college sport. There just aren't enough boxers today for guys like Greb, Moore and Robinson to have 200 fights, even if they wanted to fight 4 times a month.

 

Look at the advancements in MMA from the early/mid 2000s (when it first set foot in the mainstream) to now. Completely different levels. Things evolve much more drastically in their formative years. Does that really need to be explained?