Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

Iran Barkley would take Fitz's head off his shoulders and Duran spanked Barkley. Just food for thought.

 

Duran didn't spank Barkley, it was a close fight that he won narrowly. And the whole Barkley/Fitz thing is all subjective given the different eras, and Fitz looking very poor on film by modern standards.

 

No, he did not spank him.

Sometimes, I watch those 1910 and before fighters and shake my head. They do so much so wrong. I know the rules have changed but when was it ever wise to fight leaning backwards with your hands at your sides and taking looping haymakers? Sometimes it requires too much suspension of disbelief.

 

Whoops, I mis-read your post. I thought you said Fitz would take of Barkley's head, which is why I responded. I agree with you.

 

Well, then you must think Muhammad Ali was one of the worst fighters ever, because he kept his hands at his sides and leaned back away from punches.

Disagree that Fitz took looping haymakers. Not sure what footage you are referrring to there.

 

I have just rewatched Fitz against Corbett and Duran against Barkley. I also rewatched Bob Foster against Quarry and Ali. Bob Foster actually carried his hands as low as Fitz. The difference is that Foster threw a great many jabs, but Fitz is in another world as far as foot speed and mobility is concerned. He moved around quickly. Despite carrying his hands low, I noticed he was able to frequently block punches. He also showed quite a bit of head movement.

Duran and Barkley appeared to be rooted in one place compared to Fitz. I saw nothing on the film which caused me to change my view that Fitz would be too much for Duran. It is a lot to ask a man who is smaller with a far shorter reach, is slower afoot, and is outgunned by quite a bit in power, to win against a man who was only bested by one man, and that an undefeated heavyweight champion who outweighed him by forty pounds, over a 15 year period in which he reigned as champion over three divisions.

 

First of everyone knows the film footage is projected at a different speed and does not reflect the actual movement of the old time fighters ...

Styles have evolved but I feel the argument is over rated ... you can watch film of Joe Gans and see that ...

It's an interesting, legit argument ...still, I see Fitz flattening the shaky chinned , easy to hit Barkley early ..

 

Do you take issue with boxing being referred to as a science? I don't. There is more science in car manufacture than there is in juggling, and there is more science in boxing than there is in juggling...

Juggling really strikes me as a worse analogy than my imperfect comparing the ancient to the modern. Juggling has neither the sophistication nor the dynamic nature of what is happening in the ring, not to mention that when you are getting hit, it's a whole different thing.

My use of the Model T analogy was simply to illustrate that boxing, like technology has changed and progressed. There may be different reasons for the changes but boxers became more efficient and more sophisticated; for example in the use of angles and in-fighting since the days of Fitz. Don't think that I overdue the "progressive science" of it. Boxing has stagnated in terms of skill and began to as early as the 1950s when the clubs closed down in my opinion.

I find it far more likely that Duran would have more tricks that Fitz had never seen than Duran -who was we must remember, the issue of the archaic Arcel and B.C Brown.

I see the fight as a clinic. And Duran, while not stopping the larger man, will make him look... amateurish.

 

I agree with Stonehands here, as I've basically said. I believe boxing has peaked and is currently in a ditch, but I can't believe that the sport peaked as soon as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around. That's just not logical, it would mean that the sport was founded(Queensbury rules) and reached its apex within about 20 years of conception or less, given whatever your point of view is. We've seen the footage, we understand how different not only the rules and regulations were, but also the techniques. So I don't understand how anyone could expect someone from that period to be thrown directly into a modern boxing ring with a brilliant modern technician like Duran and have any kind of success. The sport has evolved and peaked since those days(around the 40's IMO was when the sport truly modernized and began to peak skill-wise), I don't understand the arguments against it, especially given the film footage we have of fighters of that era like Fitz, Ketchell, Johnson, etc.

 

I just rewatched Fitz's fights and the two Foster fights. Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz -and it's no virtue, which is why most fighters don't do it anymore. Back then, most of them did.

Foster paid for this flaw with unnecessary shots from Mike Quarry and with abuse by Ali. In fact, Ali's hands were relatively high in that fight and although he did catch a couple of Foster rights on the cheek, he also saw that Foster's stance is at too sharp of an angle and invited left hooks. Ali obliged and down went Bob.

Your statment about Fitz being in another world in terms of mobility just doesn't stand. What you see as superior movement I see as inefficiency. At one point against Corbett, Fitz runs and bends and actually turns away from Corbett. His mobility is limited to going straight in then going straight out... No angles.

What about Foster's infighting? What about his combinations? Neither Fitz nor Corbett do any real infighting. They stand straight up like sticks and don't even bend. They clinch in close (which were not broken up so easily if at all back then) and Fitz best idea of combination punching seems to be a right-left. That's it.

You're seeing Duran's being rooted in one place really misses all of those pivots, angles, infighting, and master defense that he demonstrated throughout that bout. Why should he get on wheels against Barkley? His range had to be in close because he was outgunned and outsized.

I'm actually quite surprised that you see nothing in the film aside from one commonality between the low-hands style of fighting then and Foster's flaw.

....
I for one, am not so eager to tout those records back then. I don't trust them. You write that he was bested by "one man over a 15 year period." That one man was Jeffries who was 9-0. But you forget that Ruby was KOd 9 years earlier by Jim Hall in Australia and KOd 4 years before that by Mike Dooley -also in Australia.

His record is not as legendary as it is often touted. Aside from the 3 belts, one of which was taken from a lunger, Ruby's record is reminiscent of Marcel Cerdan's. That is, lots of fluff. Fitzsimmons is listed as fighting 93 times. Somewhere near 52 of them were either 0-0 or had losing records. Damn near all 52 could rightly be considered novices. He beat three guys who had more than 20 wins -Hall, the Nonpareil (who had been suffering from turburculosis), and Maher. Thirty of these fights were at one place -Foley's Hall in Australia.

Ruby has some beautiful wins on his resume. No doubt about that. I just don't see how anyone can equate a win over a pioneer with a win over a modern fighter. Relatively speaking, it remains impressive. In real terms, less so.

 

Add three more:

Dempsey
McLarnin
Petrolle

 

I think as the rules changed the fighters did improve their technique. It was only natural that they did when you think about it. The amount of holding, pushing, and hitting on the break limited a fighters skills. The fighters back then relied a lot more on being physically strong. When Jack Johnson fought Ketchel he was knocked down and got straight back up immediately to floor Ketchel in return. With stricter rules things became technically more tidy. The people who watched boxing back in the early part of the last century weren't too bothered about what they were witnessing as thats all they knew. They were use to watching the sport with a bit of wrestling. When fighters were instructed to go to a nuetral corner after knockdowns and were penalised for holding it done the sport good. During the 40's I think boxing became to bloosom technically. The 30's was the adjustment period IMO.

 

Boxing is closer to an art than a science. If "scientific" knowledge in the sense of skill were all that mattered, Duran would have been fighting Hearns and not Barkley. Hearns had it all over Barkley in skill, but one right did him in.

Yes, people do not hit jugglers. I imagine that skipping rope while bouncing a ball off your head would not be possible if someone were sticking jabs in your snout at the same time.

I still think juggling, or other difficult physical skills, are far better analogies to boxing than the advance of mechanical science dolled up with pseudo-Darwinian gobbledegook. Just my opinion.

Did either Arcel or Brown actually see Fitz fight? You missed my point that Duran might confuse Fitz now and again, or even often, with tricks, but I think Fitz most likely would survive. Duran might not have the slack to be confused even once or this fight is over. Against Corbett, a much bigger man and faster on his feet, the film shows Corbett throwing what seems even today a textbook jab. Fitz slips it to the outside and quickly pivots in with a left to the body that finishes Corbett. I don't see Duran beating Corbett under any circumstances.
Size does matter.

I don't think there would be much infighting for the same reason a battleship with 16 mile range batteries does not, if it can help it, exchange at 6 miles with a battleship with 10 mile range batteries. It would be in Fitz's interest to keep this fight at a distance, and with an advantage in foot speed and a vast advantage in reach, and far greater power, he has the weapons to do it.

By the way, Arcel said Dempsey, who fought much closer to Fitz's era than to Duran's--Fitz was actually still having fights when Dempsey was active--would defeat any of the later champions. How do you know he would have assumed Duran beats Fitz? Did he ever say so?

 

"I can't believe the sport peaked as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around."

Boxing was around for two centuries before Fitzsimmons, but who is arguing it peaked in the 1890's. Boxing at that point was restricted to the British Empire and the United States. It was illegal in much of the United States. The issue is not the average level of boxing in the 1890's versus the 1980's. The issue is Fitz versus Duran. I would point out that Fitz was the HEAVYWEIGHT champion of his era and defeated men much bigger than any good fighter Duran defeated. Duran was very erratic once he moved past welterweight. His only impressive wins were over a washed up Cuevas, a Moore who may not have been that good or that experienced, and the tough but rather crude Barkley. Only Barkley was even a middleweight. Fitz was competing at an unlimited weight and was blowing out the top big men of the time. Fitz was simply a naturally much bigger man who went 15 years while being honestly bested only by the huge Jeffries.