Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

Fitz would destroy him.

 

Please accept my most humble apologies J,I don't know what I was thinking of.

 

Whether kids or hardened fans, the impact of the more 'tangible' film will leave its impression. If the material is there then it's ours to absorb and subconsciously analyze; this is why Robinson is boxing's P4P bookmark.

With the film, we gain the power to elucidate our previous assumptions with the material as our tool; Ala 'There is no knowledge that is not power'.

In boxing, 'knowledge' is often incriminating to our older generals as we begin to naturally perceive what we know.

When the lesser film greets a sculpted mind-set it's those very guidelines, used to differentiate the gradient of an evolved art form, which can confuse stylistic changes with good ol' plain effectiveness.

There are thousands upon thousands of picture-painting analogies that better help us understand a theory of evolution in the ring whether it is Lions or Model-T's. Other sports are far easier to call, with boxing, the more you try to encapsulate it the more you will be lead down its alternating branches.

There is no defining hook on which you can rest your Loral’s. Perception is at an imbalance with the available material. This is not a point to strengthen Ted Spoons any more than it is to weaken your own. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

As to the intangible 'truth', it will always lay dormant to our knowing, but 'closer to the truth' is in the works. The older form of boxing is not as left in the smoke as many believe. In fact, the more you find out, the more you can relate. John L. Sullivan being able to strike with great speed is beginning to work its way into our jargon - to many books, therein lies the portrait of a barbaric drunkard with some charisma.

With layer after layer getting peeled off, things are becoming clearer or at least fairer. Ted Spoon is to make sense of all of this.

-'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey was Fitzsimmons' most technically efficient foe, a man who was praised to high heaven in his time for his great ability.

 

I find it very difficult to evaluate fighters of the pre 1920's due to poor film and lack of film and the extreme style differences. Like someone else said, one guy who did impress me was Langford. I can't presume to make a judgement, but I'm not saying others don't have the knowledge to make that judgement, I just think it should be backed up with a sunstantial analysis.
One thing I'll say though is that the Middleweight Duran never seemed to have his "solar plexus" in the best shape.

 

That's what Dundee beleived before Leonard I and he was really wrong. Watch Duran-Barkley. Barkley was throwing monster shots repeatedly downstairs and Duran responded as if it were less than an itch.

If Ruby gets in close to Duran with his hands down as he frequently does on the film and tried to throw his vaunted body shot, he will be countered like he never had before by anyone.

 

That is not why Robinson is the p4p bookmark. You discount resume, longevity, dominance, ability to compete past his prime and against larger men, etc. It isn't just visual analysis that confirm his royalty --We do not have much film of the WW Robinson and yet he is still widely touted as the best WW in history.

Like me, your verbosity at times grows wings and launches up and away, but I think that I can catch hold and politely bring it down to the pavement. Someday I may require the same service from you.

Your argument is essentially this: we are naturally influenced by our own preconceptions and are prone to defer to things familiar as opposed to things unfamiliar. Therefore, it isn't necessarily true that the pioneers' pugilistic style was any less effective than modern technique.

This may be true. However, it is less true for the objective mind; for those who respect history and context. I have no doubt that boxers at the turn of the 20th century used techniques that were appropriate for that time and within the rules of that incarnation of the sport. Men are problem-solvers and when you toss a man into conditions of exigency, like the ring, he will adapt. The pioneers we remember were the best at the trade as it was then.

However, men are also progressive. Science is progressive, not stagnant. The 20th century was outstanding among every previous century in recorded history in this regard, though not always for the betterment of humanity as Hitler and Stalin demonstrated to the dismay of all that is good and just. They proved that given scientific advancements since the time of Vlad Dracula and Ivan the Terrrible, humanity's capability for destructive impulses could be indulged with truly devestating results. Their objective could also be reached efficiently, and efficiency is always a goal of science, be it medical or economic, or pugilistic.

Skills evolve over time. They become more efficient over time. Beginning around 1920 the rules of the sport changed, the sport became more organized, and the skills adapted, conforming closer to what it is today.

By arguing that a pioneer can defeat a modern counterpart, you have to make two assumptions. The first is that their level of skills are enough as they were, and the logical expectation of evolution/development are not at play. That's a stretch. The second assumption is what kills it: That a boxer from 1900 would somehow cope with far different equipment, rules, and expectations that the boxer today is conditioned to.

I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini. The Model T deserves it's place in museums and the Lambourgini owes it's existence to those first horseless carriages. The man who invented fuel-injection is an inventor. The man who invented the wheel is a genius.

To be sure, I myself often used the Fitzsimmon's shift in the ring. Ironically enough, I saw Duran do it many times and don't remember anyone else doing it although I've heard that Marciano would do it too. It's a beautiful move and it works like hell. So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten.

 

Ted Spoon, I need reiterate what Stonehands stated a few posts back. The most telling part of Robinson's status as the P4P fighter versus the likes of Leonard, Greb, Wilde etc. IMO is the fact Robinson was able to compete at a level where he was defeating world champions while being past his best. No champion before or since has accomplished this for the duration of 25 years. Robinson's record speaks for itself...and the film backs up the record.
Now to the match-up...Fitzsimmons versus Duran at middleweight.
Bob Fitzsimmons seems to me to be the cornerstone for professional boxing in regards to offensive, powerpunching. Was Fitzsimmons one of...if not the first originator of using your full body weight to maximize the destructiveness of your blows? Jack Dempsey certainly regarded Fitz as one of the 'old masters'.

"Exploding body weight is the most important weapon in fist fighting or in boxing. Never forget that! I was at my peak as a fighter the day I met Willard under the broiling Toledo sun. My body weight was moving like lightning, and I was exploding that weight terrifically against teh giant. Even before the first round was finished, Willard looked like the victim of a premature mine blast." - Jack Dempsey

Fitz was also highly regarded as an innovator, by the 'old master' Joe Gans. Is there something to the methods of the pioneers like Fitzsimmons? The reports of the body counts of Fitz' opponents say so...What would Fitz present to Duran from a stylistic point? It looks on film that Fitz stands erect, somewhat squared, with hands at a lower position, with weight on the back foot. Before poking holes in Fitz's stance, take into account how boxing was conducted back in the day...The fights were scheduled for very long durations, if you aren't experienced in trying to hold your hands up for 3-5 minutes, Go ahead and try it, it can get tough... now try holding your hands high for 20 or so rounds. No wonder they held their hands lower, it was a necessity. Also as fights wore on and on, the small horse hair gloves became heavier and heavier. One thing to consider Fitz was considered an absolute monsterous puncher in his day...How about with modern gloves? He would unquestionably be able to hit even harder, because of increased padding in the gloves...His hands would be more protected. Interesting thought?
Ted Spoon, you would know this more than I would, did Fitz initiate and find his range by using the left jab? From the films it does not appear so...I would think Fitz dominated in his day due to a better command of his center line in offense and defense...He tore them up from the inside out.
With Fitz's erect leaning back style, I'd imagine Duran to use feints and attempt to work angles. While Fitz is regarded as a cunning, strategist and very quick to capitalize on mistakes, or force an opponent into making them. Duran would be a complex proposition that Fitz would never have witnessed before... It's easy to say Duran would use feints and angles...how do you express it? Duran was a boxing encyclopedia, there were literally many ways to get close, fire off jabs to score or find range for the right,pivot to the side with left hooks to the body and head, Ray Leonard has stated on a HBO broadcast, that he feinted even with his hair!
Duran's pivots could possibly offset Fitz's straight line stepping and power delivery...Stylistically Duran has (evolved?) the advantage of being more mobile, being able to counter by getting under or to the side of attacks...There would be a complexity to his style, that Fitz would never have had the opportunity to see before...Fitz would problably deduce that his best chance lies in straight line body punching, hiding Duran's head very elusive...Duran would have his opportunities to counter Fitz as he attempted to go downstairs...How does Duran react to Fitz's power? How does Fitz react to fast, rapid fire combinations on the inside while he gets set?
I feel Duran wins a decision...
A rematch though?
Fitz might solve Duran, something tells me he would be a very fast learner to the modern game.

 

And with that could you objectively say that Harry Greb, for instance, is as well documented?

The point in mind was rather simple, but Ted Spoon did not attempt to weave a web around you with waffle.

It was not so much about our preconceptions of the eras as it was about the older style of boxing, which relates far more to the more modern breed boxing than any one fan is aware of.

Science is, generally, a stable evolution. Boxing is forever an unsolved equation.

Science makes sense; boxing has a habit of making none at all. There are freak exceptions where the man with the sword defeats the man with the machine gun - an outcome that would never occur in the battle field.

And...

"So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten."

You've written the point here.

Bob Fitzsimmons was not so much a pioneer as he was a total exception.

 

The film shall do its job to keep Robinsons stellar legacy alive, but Fitzsimmons, Langford and Greb all fought on past their best while taking the best scalps around.

Greb was possibly past his best for the first Tunney fight...

Now herein lies the pivotal point on Fitzsimmons:

All we have on Fitz is of him getting out boxed by Corbett looking a bit funky and static with his low hands, a stark contrast to the energized hunter of the 'Nonpareil' Dempsey', Jim Hall, Dan Creedon and Peter Maher fights.

Duran would not cause Fitzsimmons to take a back seat while hoping to land the big one, but be all over him with his trademark right and left hooks.

Duran would not be able to skirt around Fitz like the Ali-like Corbett was. He would have to get involved, rely on circling and pot-shots, but it'd be very dangerous.

 

Greb is my top 3 and there is next to no film of him that is presently known. He is also very often touted by others who argue, sans any film like WW Robinson, that he is top 3 or 5.

Alas, I would say that neither does it relate to modernity as far as some ESB posters would have us believe...

Boxing is dynamic, not static, but that does not exactly promote the believe that success in the ring is a downright mystery. If you consider probability you can make some judgments about who would win and why... Teddy Atlas does it often, and even within a fight, analysts can see what is about to happen before a layperson. Of course, it is the theatre of the unexpected -when punches are flying near nerve centers there are always surprises...

There are many downright shocking defeats on battlefields across teh globe, Ted Spoon. Boudica's forces were, according to Tacitus, 100,000 strong. Dio Cassius claims that she had upwards of 230,000. The Roman general Paulinus had about 10,000, or so it is claimed. Either way, he was woefully outnumbered and yet destroyed Bouidica. Why? He chose the ground. More developed tactics. Efficiency. Experience. Professionalism. It all sounds familiar, yes?

Stonehands says that Bob Fitzsimmons was both a pioneer and exceptional -for his time. I am sure that if he were transported here via time machine, Ruby would not prove so exceptional in the modern era. Too many Paulinuses.

 

Ted Spoon - When assessing this fight I can honestly only evaluate from what I'm seen...Even given Fitzsimmons' past his best on the avaliable film...(Was he past his best v Cobett?)
It is feasible that Fitz would be very aggressive and press the action hard...but when doing that in the ring, openings for the opponent, especially of Duran's caliber would be painfully exploited. Duran thrived against aggressive fighters, by drawing leads either lefts or rights, bobbing under and countering with hard rights. In fact, when Duran's opponents pressed, Duran did not have to work as hard to land his blows.
One does not need to move like an Ali, Corbett, or Ray Leonard to effectively create distance against an ultra aggressive foe. Distance can be gained by subtle shifts, movement from the head and waist, a nudge to help an onrushing past you, economical footwork pivoting to the side...Benny Leonard did all of this...Duran knows those tricks as well.
A question...could Fitzsimmons press an attack with the weight on the front leg like the heavyweight Jack Dempsey? I think one would need to be a proponent of the bob and weave style, to effectively press the action like you suggest Fitzsimmons would employ against Duran. Did Fitzsimmons possess that attribute? He stands very erect while fighting (from what I've seen) Fitzsimmons weight shifting from the backfoot creates impressive leverage for powerful blows for sure. It is a pure form of bodyweight punching. But Duran is not a stationary opponent by any means...While Fitz gets set, Duran pivots and fires...then moves. Duran was very fluid at this and against some very fast opponents. Who among Fitzsimmons' opponents would be a comparable stylistic analogy to Duran?
If Fitz is capable of the footwork required to close the distance and fire off punches from his loaded trigger stance...Wouldn't the energy expediture be enormous?

 

"I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini."

But a comparision to technology is worse than useless concerning a physical activity such as boxing. Boxing isn't anything like building automobiles or airplanes.

I think a better analogy would be juggling--a very difficult physical activity which like boxing takes years of practice and training to master. There are films of old-time jugglers on youtube. Check out Enrico Rastelli. He bounces a ball off his head while skipping rope, bounces two balls off his head at one time, juggles six plates in his hands while spinning a hoop on his left foot and skipping rope while standing on one leg, etc.
My point is this level of physical coordination and skill is so great that it is virtually impossible for a more modern juggler to be "better". The most they can do is equal this or that feat.

Getting back to Fitz and Duran, I think Fitz would just be too big for Duran to dominate and the "culture shock" of fighting someone removed a century in time might effect Duran as much as Fitz. The difference is that Fitz could be made to look silly here and there and survive. I don't see Duran having the firepower to stop him. If Duran is caught off guard by a Fitz trick long out of use, he gets stretched. I take Fitz by a knockout.

 

Flash Elorde, James Toney, Floyd Mayweather Jnr are fighters that come to mind as having used the technique.

 

The power in Fitzsimmons hands would just be too much-KO RD 4!

 

duran