Bob Fitzsimmons vs Rocky Marciano

My opinion is Fitz would have to fight a perfect fight AND get lucky to best Marciano. The Rock just patiently and steadily comes on and waits for anything less than perfection. Even if Fitz had a perfect night, I think the fight would be a messy clone of Louis-Conn I. At some point... Suzi-Q would end the drama.

 

Marcianos record against near 40 year olds is impeccable therefore I cannot pick against him here.

 

This would probably be like the second Jeffries fight, with Marciano taking a beating early, but eventually asserting himself with his pressure.

A Fitzsimmons win cannot be ruled out.

 

Rocky destroys Fitzsimmons here every second of the fight.

Very early ko for Rocky.

I've seen nothing of Fitz to suggest he will trouble Marciano.

Whereas Rocky has knocked out Moore who is a better version of Ruby.

 

Marciano tko 5 BF

 

I definitely think that you are selling Fitzsimmons short here.

He was clearly a murderous finisher, and he was clearly a very versatile fighter, who had a lot of layers to his game.

Perhaps the best analogy from Marciano's era, would be to describe him as a bigger version of Charley Burley.

This guy was trouble for anybody, with a capital T!

 

And Marciano would also destroy Burley.

 

You could ask Archie Moore about that, and some of Marciano's other opponents.

 

He also destroyed Moore.

I'm probably Fitz's biggest fan on this site. No one, imo achieved as much as this cornish legend in the whole history of the sport.

But I've seen him fight and it isn't possible to watch him fight and favour him over Rocky Marciano.

Even if he sets a trap in the first and catches him cold, Rocky will walk him down and destroy him.

 

My constructive criticism would be that you should read more about Fitzsimmons fights, and try to get your head round his whole bag of tricks.

No fighter has ever shocked me more, when I got into the minute detail.

 

Reading about fights can paint whatever picture you want it to paint.

My constructive criticism of you would be to study the fights we have of Fitzsimmons. Watch his movement, his stance, the way he times shots, his defensive strategies.

Then after that you try telling me he would succeed against Rocky.

 

The two things I wish for most in boxing:

1: Greb vs Tunnel

2: A remastered version of Fitz v Corbett that somehow makes Fitz look elite.

 

Believe it or not, I have studied the fights that we have of Fitzsimmons, and they are inconclusive.

If you read multiple newspaper accounts of his fights, you get a picture of what he was doing, and the films suddenly make a lot more sense.

 

I'm undecided about how inconclusive they are.

Normally I watch the fight, get very underwhelmed then go through a rehab period where I slowly forget how underwhelmed I was.

I then watch it again months later in the hope I missed something last time out. But then I get that same sense of underwhelming depression.

When we watch Dempsey and Wilde it is sometimes hard to tell if they're slipping shots, rolling them, or being tagged cleanly. That is inconclusive. But you can see clearly the style they possess and that is not inconclusive.

With Fitz, we know he didn't avoid every punch thrown at him and his defence was the best. We know he wasn't the fastest. We also know he had excellent timing, very good reflexes and other worldly power. Combine that knowledge with the footage available and either he quality of camera really is that bad, or we have a man with limited technical ability who can win a fight with one punch.