Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

at middleweight?

fitz is way too big for little duran.

Fitz UD.

 

Fitz fought at HW at times, but he himself was a natural MW, which Duran had faced, and modernized ones at that.

And you'll notice I mentioned Queensbury rules, not the primitive bareknuckle "boxing" of centuries past.

 

"Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz's--and it's no virtue."

Perhaps not a virtue, but who beat him at his own weight. Not many, Ali handled him but Ali was 41 lbs heavier. Duran is closer to Foster in weight than Foster was to Ali. Do you think Duran beats Foster? I don't.

Plenty of guys fought with their hands high in that era. Watch Dick Tiger for example, or Jose Torres. Tiger got blown out by Foster, though, and I have my doubts that Torres would have beaten him. Carrying your hands high might not be quite the be-all and end-all that you assume.

On Marcel Cerdan--Cerdan had a spectacular record against general opposition, better than most in fact. Yes, this record is somewhat bloated by fighting a lot of second raters. But criticism can go too far. Cerdan fought ten fights against fighters rated when he fought them, and won eight of those fights. One loss was a disputed hometown decisions which he subsequently reversed. The other was to LaMotta in a fight in which Cerdan was injured. An 80% winning percentage against rated fighters is better than most Hall-of-Famers can claim.

On Fitz's record--As Janitor has pointed out time and again, and I think it is fair, we just don't know what the records were of most fighters from that era. Take Arthur Upham, for example. Off boxrec, he never won a fight. Yet he was imported from Canada to test Fitz before Fitz fought Dempsey. If they wanted a pushover, they could have gotten a local pushover. Why put up a big purse for Upham? I think he obviously had a lot of fights that are unrecorded to have built a reputation that carried to New Orleans from Canada.

From 1890 to 1905, Fitz did defeat Dempsey, Creedan, Hall, Maher (2), Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Gardner, all of whom were top men of the time. He probably should have had a second win over Sharkey and a win over Choynski, both of which ended with his opponent old cold on the canvas. He lost clearly only to Jeffries. How good were the rest of his opponents, such as Edward Rollins, for example. I can't say, and this does leave a certain question mark over Fitz, but no one since has been able to accomplish what Fitz did, and I don't see Duran defeating any of those that came anywhere close--Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, or Michael Spinks. They are just too big.

 

I never said that skill/science were all that mattered. I'd say that boxing is science, art, intanglibles, and a little luck...in that order. It's science first, I'd stand by that. The absolute necessity of instruction and experience in the ring really does away with any idea that it's more art than science.

You know that the immediate reason why Hearns got blasted out by Barkley: It was because he had his left hand by his waist while in range (kind of like what Fitz and co. did constantly). Barkley survived because he was one tough SOB, but he landed the sleepytime shot because Hearns made a mistake.

Do you mean gobbledygook? I thought the analogy was pretty clear but I will dumb it down upon your request next time. Feel free to use your own analogies, although I'll still tell you that the juggling analogy sucked. Just my opinion.

Skills matter more.

And you missed my point about Arcel and Brown. They had the wisdom of the ages -Arcel since the 1920s. They gave it to Duran. Duran was exceptionally well-schooled. That's the point there.

What difference is their having seen Fitz fight?

The battleship is no longer the warship of choice. The aircraft carrier is. Progress again.

Arcel was convinced that Dempsey would have whipped Frazier and Ali both in 1971. I half agree. I think he may have been understandably nostalgic. I never said that Arcel assumed "Duran would beat Fitz", again, I was merely offering argument in the way of Duran having about 6 decades of boxing knowledge (read: science) in his head.

I agree that Duran could ill-afford to take many shots from any larger man, and agree that Ruby could hit. I temper my enthusiasm though, simply because HWs wore 4 ounce gloves back then and because they did not punch in combination very often at all, preferring to stand off, wait, clinch, and throw 1 or maybe 2 shots at a time. They didn't have much of an inside game and many shots were sloppy. Duran makes you pay dearly for sloppy shots.

Ruby threw short punches with great leverage and in that sense he was ahead of his time, he could also slip shots more than most back then. But his style still screams of the primitive to eyes that may not be as nostalgic as yours.

 

Fitz certainly became a natural super-middleweight or lightheavyweight. He generally weighed in the 160's from the early 1890's on. He was over 160 for the Hall rematch, for example. At 6 foot, he is simply a bigger man than Duran and he had a fluky build which allowed him to fight bigger than he was. Think Monzon.

I understand where you guys are coming from concerning superior modern skill. I think there is a lot to it, but you are carrying it into an ideology and ignoring that Fitz was in fact rather skilled, as the film of the Corbett fight shows, and had enormous physical advantages over Duran.

 

1. Hearns got blasted out by Barkley because he had his left at his side--fair enough, but he also carried his left at his side against Duran and it did not matter. Duran did not have the reach nor the power to take advantage. I don't think he does with Fitz either.

2. Aircraft carrier is warship of choice--And an aircraft carrier carrying planes with a six hundred mile range would probably prefer not to get involved with an aircraft carrier whose planes only fly 300 miles at less than 300 miles.

3. Thank you. Gobbledegook is spelled gobbledegook, but gobblygook or gobbledegook. a theory that equates the evolution of rabbits or boxing with the mechanical improvements of trucks is nonsense. And juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to boxing.

4. I agree that in the very sparse film available of Fitz, he does not show many combinations, nor does he throw many jabs. I think a jab more than combinations would doom Duran because of the size factor.
On combinations, though, how many complex combinations did Monzon throw? He generally stuck with the basic one-twos.

 

Duran would get destroyed by Foster, but that does not in any way provide argument on behalf of carrying your hands low, Fogey. No trainer in his right mind would say anything less than "KEEP YOUR HANDS UP" when they see their charges developing that bad habit.

Tiger got ruined by Foster because Foster hit him with cruise missiles -not because Foster held his hands low.

Foster was a great fighter despite his flaws. Every fighter has flaws and sometimes they pay for them. I'd say, in the vast majority of instances, a fighter's flaws catch up with them. And that includes Foster and Ali.

Cerdan was a great fighter with a fluffy record. His fluffy record does not diminish his greatness, but it does provide an example that is akin to Ruby's record.

Upon closer examination, your argument here is not compelling.

First of all, Ruby never weighed more than about 172. He wouldn't be allowed to fight Heavies these days. Duran was restrained by rules that required him to approach weight limits. Second of all, Duran had a LW frame -he was of the Hispanic race and therefore naturally a small man. And I do not believe that his accomplishments against Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley are any less impressive give the circumstances than Fitzsimmons' accomplishments.

As to your statement about the mysterious records back then. You merely affirm what I already wrote in an earlier post, namely that you cannot trust those archaic records. I am not about to assume that Fitz's last fight was against a formidable opponent -because the guys record was 0-0. He doesn't deserve a reputation. That's all we have to go on -an 0-0 record. If there is information that tells me otherwise, fine, my mind is open, but in the absence of information, I equate Ruby's 0-0 conquests with those 5 bums that Foreman took out in 1975.

In fact, I just looked all of his 0-0 conquests from 1891-1914 and only one of them ever fought again. They all ended their careers with an 0-1 record -save one who went 0-2. These weren't fighters, Fogey. They have been two-fisted hobos looking for a meal, or barroom brawlers with a reputation, but they weren't fighters.

 

Duran had the power to hurt Hearns, but Duran never got the damn opportunity. Again, Hearns' low left cost him throughout his career. Barkley made Hearns pay for dropping his left and then in turn Barkley dropped his left after a jab and Duran sent him reeling in round 1.

That's respectable power -and I'd say that Barkley was taller and stronger than Bob -especially in the leg department.

In another post you called Barkley "crude" -and yet you cannot bring yourself to concede that the fighters we see on film from the early 20th century were comparatively crude. I'm calling you on that.

You misunderstand. The days of battleships are over. We should not expect them to compete with aircraft carriers anymore than we can expect a Model T to compete with ....oh never mind.

Of course, a battleship could still overcome a smaller modern ship, but not necessarily. It's tough to overcome modern science.

Juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to motherhood.

You seem to be hung up on the mechanics of the analogy. Not only is it not nonsensical, it's common sense: Things progress. When science is applied to a task -be it building cars or breeding rabbits or building fighters, it makes adjustments based on trial and error and builds upon itself.

You're beef is with progress, not the analogy.

Monzon regularly threw 3 and 4 punch combinations to the body and the head. Often behind a double jab; and these against technicians like Valdez and Napoles. Monzon was neither flashy nor fast, but he was a modern-style fighter who's toughness hearkened back to the days of endless rounds and smaller gloves.

 

"Juggling is a skill comparable to motherhood."

Motherhood is not a learned talent. Most people could not be world class jugglers, or pianists, or boxers, without a great deal of commitment and dedication, plus exceptional innate ability.

I don't admit Fitz was crude because I don't see that on the limited film. Perhaps it is harsh to say Barkley was crude, but he didn't have Fitz's foot or head movement.

On battleships--actually you misunderstood from the beginning and brought in a worthless point about aircraft carriers. My point was that Fitz would fight Duran at a distance because he had greater reach. The guns of a battleship was an analogy, but bows and arrows, rifles, or rockets would serve as well. If your weapons have greater range (in boxing-reach) you would prefer to fight at greater range.

Trouble with comparing Fitz to Monzon is that we only have a few minutes of Fitz. Still Monzon in his own days was criticized by some for lacking combinations. It sure didn't hurt him.

"Things progress"

Some things do. And with some it is not so clear. If the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff? Records argue otherwise.
Is the best modern juggler better than Rastelli? Film argues otherwise. If the best modern dancer better than Robinson or Astaire. Many would say no.

That all things progress all the time is mere ideology and not very subtle or convincing ideology at that.

 

This fight would be at MW, so Fitz's size at LHW and whatnot wouldn't come into play.

My point is that Duran has faced MW's, IMO much better ones by modern standards, mainly in Hagler, whom he fared well against. He also beat Iran Barkley at 37 years of age or thereabouts. So I don't see anything aside from a height advantage seperating the two from fighting at MW, and Duran is simply far more skilled from what I've seen. I haven't seen any footage of Fitz that leads me to believe he'd be able to compete with modern day MW's, not in the Corbett footage, not in any footage.

 

Foster paid for his flaws after he grew old and after a six year reign as lightheavyweight champion that is among the best ever at that weight. This raises the issue of whether his "flaws" were really flaws or if they are only ways of doing things with which you disagree. The same is true of Ali.

Fitz generally fought in the 160's through his peak. More importantly, he fought men who were substantially larger, certainly cruiserweights by modern standards, and some who even today would be heavyweights. He kept his punch against these bigger men.

On Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley--If you want to consider Duran the better p4p fighter, fair enough, but he didn't beat the middleweight Hagler, lost 2 of 3 to the welterweight Leonard, Barkley was so-so, and Buchanan was a lightweight. However you consider Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin p4p, they were much bigger men and I think it is reasonable to be more impressed with beating them than a lightweight, in a none p4p evaluation.

Fitz deserves no particular credit for beating these men with no records, but my point is that at least some, if not most, of them, probably had fights we don't know about. Take Jim Daly--supposedly he fought McCaffery, McAuliffe, Slavin, and Maher in his first four bouts, all top heavyweights although he was only a middleweight. Doesn't make much sense to me. I think he had other fights, and I would say it is just as wrong to run with a lack of evidence to the conclusion that these men were all mere "toughmen" with no boxing experience. We just don't know.

 

"not in the Corbett footage, not in any footage"

The Corbett footage seems to be all there is that is of any use. Fitz was 46 when he fought Lang.

We have to agree to disagree. I think Fitz looks good on the Corbett footage. So does Corbett.

Fitz did not jab much against Corbett. That is something I would like to see him do. On the other hand, he is fighting a taller and very quick man. I would like to see how he fought a shorter man.

By the way, I was just watching Langford and Gans. Gans showed me much less than Fitz. He didn't seem to have a lot of movement against Kid Herman, held his hands low, like Fitz, and threw one punch at a time. He did flatten Herman with one counter right. Langford fought with his hands at his side through most of the film I watched. He did not even appear to be bothering with defense at all. I think Fitz had better skills than either Gans or Langford off the film. I would take Duran easily over Gans at lightweight.

 

Motherhood requires "skill, commitment, dedication" -and maternal instincts. Half the population cannot be mother's and many mothers aren't exactly good at it.

The juggling-motherhood statement was tongue in cheek, by the way.

Fitz doesn't show any of the infighting, combination punching, much defensive skill, or angles that Barkley showed. Would you admit that Fitz style, as far as we can see, was comparatively simple?

No, I understood your battleship analogy completely. It was obvious. But you are declaring yourself immune to the opposing argument here: namely, that Ruby's style of fighting was consistent with boxers over 100 years ago, and Duran is a modern technician. Thus the aircraft carrier. That's just as obvious.

You want to make comparisons between weaponry/science from the same era. These guys have a century between them and you seem to find that irrelevant.

If you want to believe that Fitz was able to demonstrate skills that today would be taken for granted, but chose not to on film, then that's your right. I think it's a stretch.

Absolutely. And if I was arguing that "ALL things progress all the time" then your retort would fit. Boxing skill did progress between 1900 and the 1940/50s and it strikes me as very clear that it did.

I have stated before that boxing has not progressed in that past 50 years and seems to have devolved due to many factors.

 

In the opinion of every trainer you or I have ever known or heard of in the past 50 years, carrying your hands low in range is a flaw, as is pulling straight back from punches. Just because tall fighters and athletic stand-outs can get away with it, doesn't reduce it to mere matter of opinion.

I don't see this as a matter of what kind of ice cream you prefer. There are health risks in the ring. Would you encourage your fighters to keep their hands at their waists in range?

Sure he did, but he also had the benefit of 4 ounce gloves. I'm not accusing Ruby per se but the gloves were commonly loaded back then.

I just cannot bring myself to equate his opposition then to what it would have been later.

Impressive indeed, but size isn't everything. I am utterly convinced that Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett -who is strikingly unimpressive on film.

I agree that we cannot reach solid conclusions, but it's tough to make something impressive out of an 0-0 record no matter how you slice it. I don't want to overstate that argument because all fighters have fluff on their records -as late as 1986 Duran fought some can who was making his pro debut (Suero?)

 

Indeed. And what if there was that footage?

What happened was the changing rules tightened the fighting, but the fighting, the actual 'science', had been there for quite a while beforehand:

Parrying (stopping), spinning, cross-armed defence (barring), hooking (round punch), uppercuts and jabs (straight jolts) had been practised for centuries. Daniel Mendoza’s teachings are infamous.

These men had the bare basics and could apply them in different strains given the conditions…

Consider this:

Fitz meandered about the ring against Corbett with loose defensive techniques because he was considering the potential distance of the bout all the while trying to pick his spots to make it count. What looked ‘sloppy’ or ‘primitive’ was just doing enough; what was necessary.

Ironically, had he been highly wired, hands up, pumping range finders (pleasing a modern trainer), he probably would of lost after burning himself out and giving Corbett more target, but he slyly coasted through the bad times and started putting on the hurt with body blows later on.

Exactly, he grant, and that’s from just two fights.

Floyd Mayweather needed only needed the right lead and left hook to get Hatton every time. If you had Katsidis storming at Joe Gans he would be planted within the first half of the fight. He had that similar distance creating and defensive ability, to manipulate your efforts.