Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

Yank Sullivan, who I believe was the ref claimed that he saw Riordan down a half pint of whiskey before the round, not Fitz. Fitz knew that Con was a "hard drinker" and had been drinking as usual the night before, and also swore that he hit him very lightly. I think it is fairly safe to say that he knew Con was an alcoholic and probably drunk. According to the first doc on the scene, all of the witnesses said the shot was light. The manager of the company claimed that Con had asked Fitz not to hit him in the stomach and so Bob tapped him on the head, but no harder than a "10 year old child would."

I think it's pretty clear that Con was either drunk or hung over enough to show the same effects. Either way, it is a shame that it happened because it wasn't a bout, it was an exhibition. Fitz had been punching the bag just before the fatal round and said himself that he does not try to hurt sparring partners.

 

All this brain damage wasn't caused by alcohol. It was trauma. Observers, and Fitz himself, might have tried to downplay the force of the blow when it became obvious that Riordan was badly, and perhaps even fatally, hurt.

 

No, I'm not saying it was caused by alcohol. I'm saying that it's a shame that Fitz popped off a fatal shot during an exhibition. I'm not sure he meant to throw a hard shot -and hope that he didn't, especially given what I believe was Riordan's condition.

In the courtroom, Fitz said that he would not have killed Riordan for $100,000 and then "broke down and cried."

 

Alas, it is not a closed book and Robinson's universal position as #1 P4P fighter in history is not set in concrete.

That's a fair observation, but by the same virtue the vast majority believe a little pace, pivot and combination would have Fitzsimmons muddled beyond belief...

...You're one of the few considerate fans, but consider these points:

Many fans lost all faith in boxing when the MQR set took over.

There were those who were born with, brought up on and later swore down on the effectiveness of the back sword, cudgel, wrestling and other sporting techniques that later inspired the developing art of pugilism.

Now while they where indeed from a different time neither Ted Spoon or anyone else can comfortably fathom how effective and successful that very early style of boxing would translate into the modern era.

Drawing parallels with other sports is usually the measure for others to disregard past times, but boxing is so very different.

Moreover, the deeper you dig into the past, the greater the appreciation.

-Jem Belcher turned the Bare Knuckle iron man contests into shootouts- taking out his man in a matter of minutes- the equivalent of a 1st round knockout today, and 3rd/4th round knockouts, in real time.

-Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson and Stanley Ketchel fought at torrid paces; very high output fights.

-Joe Gans was impeccable at keeping his distance and choosing his spots. When the rushing Nelson fought him he was side stepped and continually punished.

Perhaps these men were simple exceptions, but it's unlikely. They were, ultimately, a product of their era. It's like saying Corbett invented the left hook; whoever said that?

History likes to point the finger to make sense of things (like the LPR/MQR transition), but Sullivan was not whipped by Corbett as much as he was by the whiskey.

Today, the difference in regulations and equipment is clear, not the compatibility of an older science.

 

Saying it's 'not fair' is going overboard, but Fitzsimmons was the scariest figure ever to grace the 160lbs division for Ted Spoons money - lanky, deceptive and brutal.

Fitzsimmons was probably the most explosive middleweight there has been; so many accounts of him finishing matters with one punch, but there are many other who were equally potent operators:

Ketchel, Greb, Cerdan, Monzon, Jones, and Hopkins.

 

Matt Donnellon will tell you better than anyone, but Maher was as devastating as could be; your pre-Shavers, in terms of power, he just did not have the delivery of Fitzsimmons to make it as effective.

 

... Agreed. The viability of pioneers' style in the modern ring is an open question. I cannot be certain of their defeat under the blows of the modern technician and no one can. I look at it as a matter of probability alone and actually only insert myself into these types of debates when the opposite conclusion is casually reached.

A note on the rxn to MQR. The discontent among fighters, at least, was probably near-unanimous and why wouldn't it be? It's human nature for the old to become reactionary against the new. New cars over here are now equipped with an annoying beeping from the dashboard that continues until you put your seatbelt on. I hate it and yearn for the days when you could drive in peace and without the computerized harassment of do-gooders...!

Gunboat Smith on modern gloves and the ban on insulation tape (!):
"I don't get it at all. There's something radically wrong someplace. In those days, you got hit, you got hurt, you learned fast..."

 

Could not agree more with this statement re this thread. While attempting to break down a hypothetical involving two styles as far removed from each other as Fitz and Duran, is akin to a dog chasing it's own tail...but it's fun anyway!

 

This statement may be pertaining to me, since I brought this up re a stylistic adjustment of pivoting and countering against an oncoming opponent. It's hard to say that Fitz would be 'muddled beyond belief', I don't really think so...given Fitz's penchant for being an innovative and thinking fighter... but I'll maintain that Duran would have employed this tactic, with success against just about anyone...Fitz included.

Duran (IMO) would have more versatility in which to draw from, his palate has a wider variety of tactics to use to adjust and to adapt. But the best Duran, at middleweight, did not win the fight against Hagler did he? He is given credit for 'staying in' and being competitive against a somewhat reluctant all time great middleweight. Duran fought an opponent in Hagler of similar stature, but with an eight inch reach advantage, and who was capable of very short destructive, twisting punches...Duran diffused much of this by fighting a smaller man's fight, his reactions were simply quicker than any of Hagler's previous opponents, hence Duran being able to evade most of Marvin's most damaging blows, with angles and economical movement, and Hagler (to his surprise) being hit with more straight right hands than he had ever before, up to that point...and YES, his (Duran's) use of angles and pivots against Hagler were evident.

Sometimes 'slickness' and 'cuteness' aren't enough to win a fight...Sometimes a 'dog eat dog' fight does break out, instead of a boxing match, and the bigger, stronger, tougher, and harder hitting man wins by simply walking through the other fighter by forcing the fight...No matter what the skill level is...Would Fitz do this against Duran? It's a possibility! I'm honestly not sure how Fitz's style would look against a modern, but I'm not close minded enough to discount what has been written about him by historians. Would he just bludgeon Duran into a KO or TKO? Hearns did it with speed, power and size along with an excellent left jab that just didn't distract, it moved Duran back lining him up for the devastation that followed in that fight in the form of his right hand. Fitz certainly has the power, but does he have the delivery, speed and timing of a modern great like a Hagler or a Hearns? It doen't look like Fitz employs a jab very frequently...in order to either distract, or initiate attacking combinations. As I stated earlier, if you... no matter who you are...Go straight at a opponent as experienced as a Roberto Duran, throwing power punches from both sides, you will be countered very hard in return...Due to the openings in your stance and your distance...Would that matter to Fitz? Or would he just mow Duran down?

The relative point is that given Duran's performance against a fighter of Hagler's standing, and his subsquent winning effort against Barkley, Duran would acquit himself well in this contest. I think the best version of Duran at middleweight would provide competition to any middleweight...this he has proven.

Why have the old traits of adhearing to, and committing to, the principles of bodyweight punching disappeared ??? Is it because boxing has evolved to the state where the objective is to outpoint, placing the emphasis on speed, reflexes, and athleticism and not forcing the committment needed to fight in a way the old timers did by emphasizing more damaging tactics?

Or were the old timers more damaging with their offensive capabilities at all? Has boxing evolved to a superior form of fighting or is it just different from the old style?

 

"The Irishman" trained right near me at Revere Beach in Massachusetts before fighting an aging George Godfrey in 1894... That bout ended with a combination by Maher that succeeded in "dislodging several of Godfrey's teeth."

Maher was stopped when still new to the game by The Black Prince himself and couldn't cope with Ruby...

 

Duran had the ability and experience to contend with many middleweights, but Fitzsimmons was powerful and tricky; powerful enough to take down heavyweights and tricky enough to feint slick fighters into knots.

As good as Hagler was he was not a tricky fighter. He did everything well, but his rhythm could be upset by a good mover like Duran. He worked off what Hagler gave him and manipulated much of it with a little move and a right cross.

Fitzsimmons was vaunted for being a counter-puncher and an attacker; he could do both. Duran could make it difficult with his tucked in posture and neat pivots, but he's going to end up playing to Fitzsimmons' tune when the latter decides to make it count.

To a large extent, yes, fighters nowadays are more geared towards outpointing their man. It use to be a fight to the finish, then it was 20 rounds, then 15, and now it is a fast-paced 12 with bigger gloves and strict referees.

Punching pressure points, which was Fitzsimmons' forte, is much harder to achieve with larger gloves. When Dempsey released his book 'championship fighting' in 1950, he made it a point to express the lack of training in 'correct punching', but he was talking about 30 years prior to the time when gloves were smaller again.

The rules changed boxing into a different breed of combat, not superior. Some things are done better, others worse.

 

Bob's style is too old for the modern style of Duran. They fought at Bob's time, Duran wins, as Roberto would give away weight, and then beat the **** out of Fitzsimmons.
They fought at Duran's time, Bob would win.

 

Fitz wins on every point, even this one.

Loss Against Dooley: ATG
Loss Against Hall: ATG anyway
Won 5 rounds against Jeffries: ATG display
Being demolished by Johnson: A Legend.

No ones record compares to Fitzys, in any fashion.

 

cool thread, definatley more worthy than some said.

ive gotta go with a fitz k.o or decision, depending on wether duran tries to win or not, if its like the hagler fight then UD.
The more interesting fight is if duran tries to win, now i pick Fitz KO. I have no doubt that duran lands **** loads of counter shots, but fitz don't seem to be off balance much so its unlikely to cause a KD.
Hearns and fitz are miles apart, so ignoring that fight why pick the KO?
Because fitz could hit very hard, and more important, accuratley, Duran's defrnce is truly excellent, but better against aggressors than a patient fighter like fitz, who will find his shot, and hurt duran enough to go for the finish.

edit, i tried to show my working, not sure theres any added value over a 9 word post: duran lands a lot but cant stop the innevitable.