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

Choynsky ko'd Johnson, Flynn did the same to Dempsey, Satterfield ko'd Cleveland Williams, Holmes beat Mercer, Foreman beat Moorer, Holyfield and Valuev, Bivins and DeJohn, Sys and Neuhaus and loads more.
If boxing has improved so much, explain these results. Carl Lewis doesn,t beat Bolt.

 

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

You can make a not-unreasonable case.

 

100% of measurable sports.

Well it is difficult to measure sports like running, swimming etc because conditions have changed so drastically. Running Equipment, Surfaces, and more importantly professionalism and training of athletes (particularly their full time attitudes). Boxing has changed in these areas too, but not necessarilly for the better. Older training regimes at worst are on par with todays and at best require more committment and discipline and are therefore better.

But, Powerpuncher asked the question for one example, so i will give one example of a measurable sport where things ahve not gotten any better. Billiards. Billiard Tables, Pool Cues, Billiard balls etc are largely unadvanced. Lindrum was a professional player from 1911 to 1950. His record break is 4137. He retired as World Champion in 1950. No modern player has got within range of this break (or many of his other records). How is this possible? I thought we evolved physically.

Anyway, this is the first point posed by Powerpuncher. there are probably other examples. For example, i cant see todays medievel jousters competing well with those from the good old days. I wonder also whether Robin Hood might score himself a gold medal in todays archery competitions. The reasons for so called evolution, have nothing to do with time and everything to do with Training and attitude. In running, swimming etc, there is no doubt that things are getting more professional. In boxing, it is not so clear. Older training regimes stack up against todays (even if they are different). The same cannot be said for that of Sprinters, swimmers etc.

People tend to forget that if the evolution theory is to be accepted, then not only does it mean Fitz is no good, then anyone before Muhammed Ali is definitely not top 10 ATG (including Ali and Louis). Actually Holmes really has the same problem. Even guys like Tyson and Holyfield and possibly even Lennox Lewis are starting to become outdated and borderline or below top 10 level, under the Evolution running time theory.

But the point is that Powerpunchers point of every measurable sport progressing has just been demonstrated to be wrong. So, if he could just correct that statement we could move on to the next one and eventually start to address the topic at hand.

 

I think he has a claim. I personally dont have him being number 1 but his resume and achievements are quite impressive. He is definitely in the top ten imo.

 

I think you need some reality check bro. Those title reigns are very disputable.

 

Which ones?

 

Slakka was interesting about the debate between Fleisher and Jacobs any more on it

 

Thank you, that went up for sweet pea!

 

Bullocks. In history every event has to be judged by the rule of its time. Why should it be different in boxing?

 

How would a fighter deal with Fitz's gloves nowadays? They look kinda' big in the Corbett fight, but I'm led to believe they wouldn't give as much cushion to a fighters hand. Is that correct?

If so, Fitz vs 'A Modern Fighter' lets for instance say Froch. Well, Froch is hittable against anyone, and good as his chin is, and as up for a ruck as he is, he is gonna' let a tough, hard punching man hit him and will he be able to take a shot from Fitz wearing thinner gloves?

If he does take the punch, is he too going to be cautious, throwing the same small amount of punches that Fitz appears to throw.

Look, lets all be honest the footage of Corbett-Fitz doesn't paint either of them in the best light, but then again if all we had of Wilfredo Gomez was the Rocky Lockridge fight we might not be up for believing the hype. I.e the only footage we have of Fitz may be on an off night and then it's one where he stops the man then known as 'The Heavyweight Champion'.

In short, whilst Fitz doesn't look all that great, getting clobbered a century ago is the same as getting clobbered nowadays, even if the punching form was not as refined as some fighters started getting it down to from around Joe Louis onwards. If what I believe about the thinner gloves, I'm assuming that punches held a different kick (if that makes sense) than a punch would nowadays. Not more painful, or more proof of a chin, but a different kinda' pain and as much proof of a chin.

So, if we say Fitz can compete with Froch, surely it must mean he can compete with anyone? If we're opening the door to one fighter surely we can open the door to Fitz competing with any other, around a suitable weight class, say, super-middle? It's not that deep a division, historically, but you're saying he wouldn't beat ANY fighter that has competed since the division was established?

The above rant is in part directed at PowerPuncher, I just wanna' see if he doesn't believe inherent toughness and an ability to move your arms in a way that you land on someones face, head, body, arm, means that ou can't have a fight. Especially when there have been numerous examples of very awkward and unorthodox styles gaining success in boxing, and surely at the very least Fitz is going to provide an awkward and tough test for any fighter?

So, am I right about the gloves?

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUj_f-CyZhE&feature=related[/ame]

Can anyone shed any light as to whether, despite it being staged to film, whether or not the Corbett fight at the beginning here is genuine or not, or an Exhibition?

Because it really does not show him in a good light whatsoever.

 

Quality of competition, title losses, lack of title defenses.

 

On what basis could they possibly be disputed?