Carlos Monzon vs. Bob Fitzsimmons

Come off it, mate. :huh

 

I was mostly thinking of you saying

Monzon was an overachiever.

That he wasn't that strong...

and the qoute below that implies Monzon's condition, durability and stamina were more integral to his success than his skills and abilities.

Monzon's a somewhat subtle study, and many simply won't get it. I didn't at first, but caught on pretty fast. Lack of both flash and easy to recognise brilliance causes many to make the mistake of judging him at face value. Unerring timing and accuracy that was often more debilitating as the match wore on, right hands that seemed to come from miles away whilst often landing hard and clean on an opponents face, the very effective awkwardness in defense and much much more. Monzon was brilliant at picking and controlling the ebb and flow of a match, and could finish very well when the time was right.

 

Come off it? Fitzsimmons was a primitive fighter by modern standards. For his time he was a great, and a pioneer, but the game has changed a lot since then. We're talking about a boxer who fought in the late 1800's, before boxing had been around a sufficient enough amount of time to have truly peaked, or even come close to it really. Film footage supports my position, regardless of word of mouth or common opinion among classic posters.

I'm of the opinion that the sport as a whole didn't really peak under modern rules until around the 40's, with pioneers coming beforehand. Fitz being one of the first was also one of the most primitive and behind the times as far as modern techniques are concerned. And once again, the little film of him we have supports this theory, as well as the film of basically every other fighter of that era. Pioneers. Great for their time, and ATG's because of it, but not by modern standards, not in a head to head sense, at least IMO.

 

The Monzon was slow theory just doesn't wash. Who ever made him miss? Ever? He was doing something right. Unsurpassed timing and accuracy.

 

Agreed. When people think of Monzon as slow, they're probably considering the older chain-smoking version of the late 70's, rather than the athletic early 70's version that took apart Benvenuti in their first affair.

 

Whilst I think Monzon will trouble Fitz for a while, I just think Bob is geared to take Monzon's best shots a bit more than vice-versa. Fitz gets outboxed for a spell, but as the fight wears on he'd start to gradually get more success- eventually his power bails him out. Remember this guy mixed it with heavy-handed fighters like Jeffries and Sharkey.

 

Dude looked like a librarian from the neck up, a marathon runner from the waist down, but had the torso of a blacksmith. He had to be a tough out at Middleweight.

 

I watched today some rounds of Monzon-Valdez II at youtube and even then you could count the rights that missed Valdez with one hand even though he was slower than a few years before. His timing and accuracy made up for any speed he lacked.

 

I don´t think you can call Fitz primitive. His skills surely weren´t primitive for the rules of his time. I even would say bosing was at his peak skillwise for the rules they fought under - smaller gloves, no round limits, no neutral corner. When the rules changed, so did boxing. I don´t think it´s fair to say that fighters who adepted their skillset to the rules of their time as good as possible are primitive.

 

True, and Valdez was a badass. That bomb he landed that knocked Monzon down would have put most Middleweights, except maybe Hagler, away. Monzon had a great chin to boot.

 

True. Primitive by today's standards is what I meant. Obviously Fitz was a phenom for his time, and as such has to be rated very highly among ATG's of all eras because he couldn't have been asked to do more. But I just can't match him up with modern ATG's in a head to head sense. I more or less just posted in this thread as a retaliation to all of those so handily picking Fitz, and by stoppage nonetheless. Normally I wouldn't post in a thread like this as I consider it a useless debate.

 

Well, you are right but I think a guy like Fitz who just was naturally such a good fighter could adept to any rules and do quite good if you give him some time. It´s speculation though.

 

I can understand you picking Monzon, Sweet Pea and it is certain possible as this one is a tough to call matchup. I just think you're dismissing Fitz too readily, certainly I can't see an early stoppage either way, but hey you're entitled to the views you hold regarding the outcome. I favour Fitz because Monzon as durable as he was wouldn't have been used to eating quite the power punches Fitz delivers.

 

It's now a question of power, but rather the vast difference in skill and modern technique, the way I see it anyway. I understand there is no real footage of a prime Fitz, but the footage we do have is, for lack of a better word, embarassing. The technical aspect of the sport in that era was just too different and lacking to compare IMO.

 

Gotto go with Bob Fitz he is just too strong (he beat Hall of Fame HW's) and quick to boot.