Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

1. I will let motherhood go. I don't think it has much to do with juggling six plates, keeping a hoop spinning on your left foot, and skipping rope, all while standing on one leg.

2. I would disagree that he does not show defensive skill. He avoids punches by movement, ducking, and blocking. Except for the sixth round knockdown, Corbett does not hit him that much. His slippage of a Corbett jab and shift to the body is classic. He does not show much combination punching on the limited film we have, but Gilbert Odd's descriptions of his fights report "volleys" of punches and combinations which move from head to body and back. Without film, who can be certain, but I would say there is historical evidence he did use combinations. He had to track down Corbett and never trapped him to really unload.

3. On battleships--Neither biological evolution nor technological progress are worth diddly-squat as analogies to boxing. Certain complex learned skills, such as juggling, piano playing, typing, dancing, etc. are much closer in my view. We both apparently agree that such skills do not necessarily improve generation to generation. Does Fitz have all modern skills? You must remember we are seeing him in footage from a fight which I believe was to a finish. He had to preserve energy. I can understand why he and Corbett did not want to engage in much tiring in-close mauling, and why they did not throw a great many "punches in bunches" at the risk of needlessly expending energy. Corbett does throw a series of combinations when he had Fitz hurt in the sixth.

4. I agree with you that boxing did progress in knowledge and technique, especially over the first half of the 20th century. It went from an outlawed sport to one popular in many areas of the globe. However, there is a limit to how far superior knowledge and technique can carry you, or Archie Moore would have beaten Marciano and Patterson. Fitz was a natural 167 lber and in superb shape at that weight. Duran peaked at 135, was good at 147, and so-so above that weight. No one said anywhere that Fitz has to fight under his best weight in this fight. Fitz looks better than any other pioneer on film to me. Observers of his time, such as Hype Igoe, and opponents such as Jack Johnson, praised him as the hardest puncher they had seen or faced. Igoe consided him a more dangerous puncher than Dempsey.

 

Duran was fantastically subtle at doing all of this in an aggressive manner, but physically, is so much more slight than Fitzsimmons. Not so much in size, but in strength.

Fitzsimmons was more of a killer at Middleweight than Duran was at Lightweight in terms of pure potency. Where does this realistically leave Duran?

Fitzsimmons is Bob Foster with superior two-handed punching and a Heavyweight chin. Everyone who fought Fitzsimmons got hit, one way or another, and he had a tendency to destroy the iron men of his era.

Fitzsimmons did not come at you like Dempsey, nobody did, but he cornered you with speed and threw hooks to the head and body with deceptive precision and power.

Duran is Duran, there was nobody else like him, but Fitzsimmons fought a huge variety of fighters; stronger, more powerful and tougher fighters than Duran, who he demolished. Maher and Sharkey were real game bangers; Choynski was a sharp-shooting puncher, Corbett a gliding boxer.

Ted Spoon will project all the good that could be possibly said of Duran, but Fitzsimmons is again getting sold more than a bit short here.

He would not be at a loss with anyone. The man was a killer, a scientific war horse with cannons for fists. Duran's ability would not skirt past this kind of danger. He may be able to hustle with Barkley, but Fitzsimmons...

Barkley could be bargained with, nobody bargained with 'The Fighting Blacksmith'. You either had the goods to beat him or you didn't. No fighter whose natural weight is below Fitzsimmons beats him.

 

1. Why didn't Foster's trainer break him of this bad habit? Why didn't Hearns' trainer?

2. "There are health risks in the ring"

Fitz knew that. He killed two men in the ring.

3. Are four ounce gloves purely a benefit? Gilbert Odd reports that Fitz said he went to the body if possible to spare his hands the damage of head punching. With modern gloves, Fitz might be even more dangerous as he could unload to the head without paying the price of damaged hands.

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

Perhaps, but no one since has been undisputed champion at middle, lightheavy, and heavy, so he dominated his opposition more than any of his successors could.

5. "Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett"

I don't see this at all. Corbett was taller, twenty-five pounds heavier, a world quicker on his feet, and a powerful enough puncher to knock out big heavyweights such as Sullivan. He had the stamina to fight 61 rounds with Peter Jackson where he certainly held his own. Barkley would probably look like he was rooted in one spot if he fought Corbett. I don't see the Barkley who fought Duran as having any realistic chance against the Corbett who fought Fitz.

You are here saying that an average modern middleweight champion could defeat an outstanding heavyweight champion of a previous era. That is taking your "progress" ideology a long way.

I see much more talent in Corbett than you do. I am not alone. This is Gene Tunney after sparring with the 59 year old Corbett in 1925. "I honestly think he's better than Benny Leonard. It was the greatest thing I've ever seen."
Pictures of the sparring, by the way, show that Corbett was considerably taller and rangier than Tunney.

6. No one is trying to make something impressive of Fitz's minor fights. Even if these men had 40-5 type records, they were not world class. I am content that Fitz be judged on his fights with Dempsey, Hall, Creedan, Maher, Choynski, Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin, Jeffries, and Gardner. I also don't think it valid to make a big negative deal of the fact that the records of many of Fitz's lesser opponents have been lost to history.

 

If there was footage then I'd be more sure. Or less sure.

There are three camps in this ongoing debate:

The first camp holds that pioneers did possess skills that could be considered little different than modern skills and would compete on even terms with modern boxers.

The second cannot get by Corbett's butt cheeks in the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film and generally disdain their style of fighting.

The third believes that the pioneers should be revered and even ranked in p4p lists, but with caution due to the plain fact that we are forced to rely on reports and scant film and also because boxing was essentially a different sport then.

* If you are looking at 25 rounds, you will fight differently than if you are looking 15 rounds.

* If you are competing with 4 ounce gloves you will fight differently than if you are competing with 8 ounce gloves.

* If there is no neutral corner rule, the fight can be totally different.

* If boxing is fought underground due to its being an outlawed sport in a given state, it will be murkier and seedier.

* Finally, newspaper decisions also must be taken with a grain of salt.

These are just a few of the differences.

I'm in the third camp; but invite those in the first or second to outline their arguments differently if they take issue with how I've done it.

When it comes to the H2H, I believe that those in the first camp rely to much on assumptions and at times go into contortions to support the pioneer's ability to compete.

 

....

I would disagree as well that "Fitz does not show defensive skill", but I would assert (again) that Fitz does not show much defensive skill. Doesn't mean he didn't have it, but I like to see it before drawing conclusions.

You seem to be a literalist. Literalists are not prone to enjoy analogies which are by definition only loose comparisons showing similarity between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

I too can understand why both fighters wanted to fight conservatively. It makes sense... but it also lends credence to the view asserted here that we are essentially comparing apples and oranges. I'd be the first to concede that Duran would not win a fight to the finish under archaic rules.

If you agree that boxing did progress in knowledge and technique then the rest of this is really incidentals. I am not adamant that Duran would beat Fitz anyway, but have always looked at "level of skill" first, though never exclusively, in making predictions. Size, age, resume, athleticism, intangibles, etc also must be duly considered.

 

I think that you may be torturing logic here. Perhaps they tried. Perhaps Foster was stubborn, or simply was more comfortable fighting like that. Just because Foster's trainer didn't break him of his bad habits doesn't mean that Foster didn't have bad habits.

According to the NY Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring. Fitz himself said that Con drank a 1/2 whiskey before getting in the ring to "spar" and that Fitz had merely slapped him with the back of the glove. I believe the ref said the same thing -that it was a nothing shot. Riordan died because he was dissipated. Official cause was given as apoplexy.... Just details I found interesting.

4 ounce gloves make for a different approach and potentially a different result.

However, it can be expected to be easier to stop or hurt a man with your fists than with pillows.

Again, details can be telling and either heighten the glory or take the luster off. I can offer you details that make Fitz's achievement glow brighter and I hope that you can offer details about the same that diminish that glow.

I wouldn't call my reminding the nostalgic posters about the value of progress an "ideology", but you are right about my low opinion of Corbett. I just do not appreciate his style other than what it is due for pointing towards Ali and the movers. He looks silly to me.

For the life of me, I can't get by this:

[YT]2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related[/YT]

... yes, I know that they are only sparring but he doesn't look that much better in my eyes on the fight films...

Again:

 

:rofl

 

I will make a few observations.

1. Styles were more fluid in Fitzsimmons time.

While the four categories that we recognise today were present there were a lot of fighters whose styles were miscelaneous.

Fitzsimmons was a miscelaneous.

2. A fighter could be British champion and have a record of 0-0-0 in Fitzsimmons era. Con Coughlin is known mainly for being killed by Bob Fitzsimmons and has a record of 0-5-0 on boxrec. He seems to have been at least a fringe contender.

3. Fitzsimmons was unique in a few key respects.

 

Sounds fair to me.

 

Make what you want of that, just like you could make something out of a film of Marciano "fighting" Jerry Lewis or Ali being "Knocked out" by a five year old child or Dempsey "taking the count" against Charlie Chaplin. Those are also on film. Your case would have more weight if you stuck to what you see in the Fitz fight, which I think is the only film of Corbett in a serious fight.

 

"Is the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff?"

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Thank you very much. Wonderful playing.

 

This is interesting and it is shared by Robert Edgren an old time boxing writer would had seen all the greats like Walker,Greb Ketchel, Ryan, etc. He stated it just wasn't fair to compare any middleweight with Fitz.(From the Mike Casey article)
A question...In your view has anyone reached the level of a Fitzsimmons at or around the middleweight limit? If not...that is a huge statement!
Cheers, Ted Spoon!

 

"According to the New York Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring"

"Fitz himself said that Con drank whiskey before getting into the ring"

Well, Fitz actually denied he knew Riordan was drunk. This was a crucial point, as he was charged with manslaughter and if Riordan was incapacitated by booze, he might be reasonably seen as guilty. Some witnesses claimed Riordan had been drinking.

As to what killed Riordan, that is no mystery.

New York Times, June 28, 1895 reporting on testimony at the Fitz trial for manslaughter:

"In the trial of Robert Fitzsimmons for the death of 'Con' Reardan, the assertion was made today on the witness stand that the direct cause of death was 'concentrated violence, delivered externally'. The expert who so testified is Dr F W Tolman, Police Surgeon, of this city who was called to attend Riordan.
"Fitzsimmons told the doctor on the night of the fatal blow that he feinted with one hand and hit Riordan on the jaw and neck with the other. Dr Tolman said that he found Riordan's body in good physical condition. One clot of blood had been found in the brain which weighed 4 1/3 ounces. The clot showed conclusively that there had been a rupture. Also around the entire base of the skull was a continuous chain of separate blood clots. There was no diseased condition of Riordan's brain. There was also a laceration or fracture of a portion of the brain made up of longitudinal brain fibers. The cause of death was blood clots upon the brain and rupture of the tissues. In the expert's opinion, the blow upon the jaw caused the blood clots and rupture."

That is from the physician who did the autopsy.

The original story the day after the fight gives similar evidence:

"Dr David M Totman, one of the most prominent surgeons in the city, said that all the symptoms pointed to a hemorrhage in the meniges, or covering of the brain. One thing that deeply impressed him was that Riordan's pupils would not contract, even under a strong light and this fact proved brain disturbance of a very serious character."

The cause of death was a brain hemorrhage caused by Fitz's blow regardless of whether anyone thought it was a hard punch or not.

The real issue here is whether Riordan was actually drunk. Who knows. Some testified he was drinking, but others didn't notice anything. Gilbert Odd's version of the fight has Riordan landing a hard right to Fitz's ear which aroused Fitz to put him away with a vicious left to the body and a right to the jaw.

The jury acquitted Fitz in July 1895 which seems to indicate to me they did not take the drinking testimony that seriously.