Has Bob Fitzsimmons Got A Legit Claim As The Gretest Fighter Of All Time?

And what about the other point?

 

Even if we are chucking him in today's era, is it too difficult to except that he might not fairly well given the character and physical intangibles he had? He had great power, strength and he was tough. If we chuck him into today's era, is it inconceivable that he might be able to learn today's modern techniques and do quite well for himself?

 

100% means 100%. simple that. 100% in 1897 is still 100% in 2009. Every measureable sport has improved, no doubt. But boxing is unique, there was far more boxers in the past, they fought a lot more, talented people went into boxing rather than other sports(crucial IMO) I still think technique, dietary, drugs, video analysis knowlegde means that current boxers are better but Fitz-and others-would be a champions in any era.

 

Lets say that he dosn't change his technique.

The guy knocked Jack Sharkey and Gus Ruhlin out so brutaly that they had to be carried back to their corners, and it was a single punch or combination in each case.

Any middleweight who has enough power and delivery to do that is going to pose a constant threat to anybodys chin.

At worst he would get somwhere based on his ability as a finisher.

Hell you could even match him against oponents with suspect chins.

 

Bob Fitzsimmons natrual ability means he would decimate people with todays training methods.

Writing Bobs achievements off due to todays styles is like writing Robinson or Ali off, I mean its plausible RJJ would have beaten Ali, certainly Lewis would have beaten him.

 

Exactly. And when talking about 'one punch can change a fight' I think Fitzsimmons has a good a case as any fighter in history of being able to turn a fight with one-punch.

I think it's evident that he wouldn't be fighting in the same upright, leaning back, hands-down way nowadays, and I don't see why he wouldn't have similar power nowadays.

But even if we took that version, I still think if you were too chuck him in with some MW contenders, they are going to get hit and hit hard, and all it might take is one punch. I do think that this essence of modern technique is rubbish and comparing them. By that virtue and PowerPuncher's essence, Matt Macklin would be a greater fighter than Bob Fitzsimmons ever was, and that would be plain silly.

 

Sometime I wonder do some people on the classic forum actually understand boxing in its reality not as an abstract. Bob Fitz could step into any gym, any TIME, and be a handful for anybody. From there anything happens but to think that the top, say 50, fighters nowadays are all superior to the champions of the 1900's is patent nonsense. The reverse, of course, is also true. Nobody in the 1900's kicks Pac's and Manny's ass either.

 

Dunno if i have to re invent this wheel but doz this newsgroup know about nat fleischer vs jim jacobs from the early/mid 1960 on this very topic??

sweet pea
Yup. Jacobs was Tyson's co-manager back in the early days before his death. He was also an avid historian and posessed a wealth of fight footage, therefore a debate between he and one of the premier boxing historians of all time in Nat Fleischer is something I'd be very interested in hearing about. I would go into more depth about Jacobs's own athletic prowess but that would be besides the point.

I know much about both of the men at hand. You don't have to explain their credentials to me, just what took place amidst their debate.

OK, I guess when you hit 49 and pay attention you start to notice stuff like this, referring to this topic being a re-invention of the wheel that originally flared up many-many yrs ago between Nat Fleisher and Jimmy Jacobs in The Ring Mag. Jimmy J. as he slowly but surely began accumulating his vast fight film collection, grew increasing resentful/pissed at old Nat for making these guys, like Fitz, out to be super fighters (and cashing in $$) that he, JJ., felt clearly WAS NOT (don't shoot the messenger here boys) the case. It began with a public series of screenings/debates before an invited audience of experts..(I recall the legendary Jim Murray L.A. Times participating)..with old Nat being more or less publicly humiliated upon the fighters being screened coz they look so freekin terrible!!! I recall Murray damming Fitzs ring prowess with the following.. "Resembling a stork with a Backache" A surviving member-participant would be J.J.s buddy Nick Beck of whom I could try to give this thread some of his input?