Foster vs. Fitzsimmons

big bob ko's ruby bob easily

 

I like Foster................ Foster and Fitz suit up well........... Great match...... Foster comes on late and KO's Fitz........ YIKES!

MR.BILL

 

It's difficult for a great fighter to be worse than Bob Foster.

Fitzsimmons by KO.

 

I should like more in put on this one,intruiging fight.
I just wonder if skinny Bob can weather Fitz's power?

 

:huh

I actually think Fitz is at the right kinda' height for Foster to ram that jab in and set him up for some heavy artillery. Either Fitz manages to get his shots off first and takes Foster out, or Foster leans back from one of Fitz's bombs and whacks him with a massive hook.

Not many I'd pick over him in this fashion, but I'm going for Fitz to go down in about five rounds. I know he was in with some big, strong guys (and some massively big hitters like Maher and Choynski) but I like Fosters skillset against Fitz's. Both massive punchers. I'd pick hardly anyone other either at the weight. Just a hunch.

 

At 6' 3" tall, skinny Foster would make frail Fitz look small at 175........ Fitz gets nailed by Foster's hook and see's stars by round 7........ FOSTER!

MR.BILL:hat

 

It's hard to make a call since there isn't any really telling footage of Fitzsimmons that I'm aware of. But Foster is possibly more over-rated than Monzon on here IMO. If he didn't have that jab he wouldn't have a skillset. Easy to hit, slow getting off, technically all over the place... doesn't help.

 

Foster didn't fight tall. Stylistically he actually looked better fighting Terrell than he ever did fighting smaller guys.

 

He could be a super-precise puncher though. And if he DID land........well, I know that you know your stuff, so you'd know the outcome.

I'm going by the footage of Fitz against Corbett, and with what I know of him from reports of his fights against Hall, Maher, Choynski etc etc.

Fosters jab would pulverise Fitz's face. Its just whether Fitz can land enough artillery back, as I have a theory that, like Wlad now, Foster really didn't like getting hit back.

 

Yes, it could very much be a case of "whoever lands first with the heavy stuff wins". Would Fitzsimmons fight patiently and give Foster time to jab? Foster was a precise puncher but he sometimes waited too long - not quite like a Julian Jackson who would just fly at you. Could Fitzsimmons get in first? I don't know. Still, I'd go for Fitzsimmons if I had to pick.

Also, I don't think Foster is great against sub-6 foot guys who know how to fight like sub-6 foot guys.

 

Foster winning the title against Tiger in '68 and defending his title until '74 must account for something.............. Bobby Fitz was NOT a real heavy by any means...... NO!

175 is a fair weight to match these two *******s at........ I like Foster of '69 to stop Fitz of 1897....... Give or take a few pounds north or south of 175........ TRUTH!

MR.BILL

 

Foster wasn't a 'true heavy' either, he was a lanky 175lber.

People are clearly weighing this match-up with styles; their achievements mean little, especially when Fosters title reign apparently 'must count for something', well if you're going by that, then no it's not going to count for much against Fitz's achievements.

Intriguing match-up styles wise. Fitz is the greater fighter clearly.

To be fair, both men might be too tentative and pick their shots a little too much (if that makes sense) Could be a stinker.

 

foster has got to be the heaviest hitting light-heavy in history.
an uppercut under fitz' chin and a left hook to follow would put the english/australian/new zealand/yank to sleep

 

Foster just wasn't your guy! I didn't see it as you did though, Bob didn't waste punches and when there was an opening he could tag a guy as sharp as anybody and with bigger results then most. Most of the light heavys he fought were around the six foot mark but he put up some great showings against those that were shorter like Kendall and Quarry, etc. Bob knew how to box but stalking behind his jab and eyeing for the finishing combo was his game.