Bob Fitzsimmons vs Primo Carnera

I think pretty much everything we are both saying is correct and one does not contradict the other ... as I first wrote on this thread the ref is key in this fight ... if he allows hugging and holding of course the much larger, heavier and stronger man has an advantage and it becomes a completely different fight ... however if they are forced to fight I see Fitz chopping up Carnera much like Louis and even Baer did ... I cannot imagine him taking that sort of punishment for too long ...

 

If light-punching Tommy Loughran could go 15-rounds with Big Primo, then
Ruby Bob would have little problem.

The difference, Ruby Bob would be offensive-minded.

The only mistake for Ruby Bob, would be walking into a 'lucky punch' from Primo
in the late rounds.

 

"The only mistake for Ruby Bob, would be walking into a "lucky punch" from Primo in the late rounds."

I don't think there would be any late rounds.

People who saw Fitz were awed by his punching power, and certainly his record backs up their impression.

A bit of evidence

Ted Carroll in The Ring, June 1955

"The old boy must have been a mighty walloper, since Jack Johnson years later always insisted that the freckled Englishman hit him harder than anybody ever did. Fitz was ancient when Johnson got around to him but to hear Jack tell it he still packed a wallop."

Hype Igoe, who went way back, in 1941 listed Fitzsimmons above Dempsey and Louis as a puncher.

One might argue these men aren't correct, but they had first-hand knowledge and we at least must admit that Fitz had to have been a sensational puncher for his size.

Carnera's destructions by Baer and Louis and Haynes do not bode well for him against Fitz. The big hitters of his own day got him. And he was not able to stop the fast movers himself, such as Loughran or Gains.

Carnera's win over Sharkey was legit, I think, but Sharkey never won a major fight after that and had never been known as a heavy hitter.

 

"demi-god build"

Interesting criterium for boxing greatness.

How did Steve Reeves do in the ring? What about Arnold?

Arnold did prove that a demi-god build is not a top criteria for a Governor.

 

The only real disagreement I have is that he was barely good enough to be top ten even in his own 'weak' era. I think he was better than that. He seems to have been consistently and solidly top ten, and usually among the top 4 or 5, during 1930 - '35.
In fact, RING magazine ranked him no lower than #4 contender in the end of year rankings for those six years.

I have no doubts that Fitz was great, but haven't seen enough of him in action to back him to do what Louis or Baer did.

 

I certainly wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with boxing ability or greatness, whatsoever.

I do think it proves that the weight on the scales reflects natural athletic size. Rather than the number a fat man might bring to the scales.
Simply put, Carnera was a fit 265 pounds.
That other guy Dunkhorst was 250 or 300 pounds by virtue of being fat.

Reeves did manage to beat an over-the-hill Carnera ...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OF3PLk_Wc4[/ame]

 

Fitz's power is underrated. Historian Nat F said Fitz was the best KO puncher of all time. Over Louis, Marciano and Dempsey. Even if Nat was off by a bit, to say this puts Fit'z power in perspective.

Not only did Fitz have power, and speed, he knew where to hit and did so with accuracy.