If Bob Fitzsimmons weighed 200lbs but acomplished the same........

Hey there Janitor, I have Fitz at 23 on my list with 22 being Max Baer, 21 Jim Jeffries, and 20 Jim Corbett - don't think any extra weight helps him any against these guys (although a convincing argument could be made for me to switch him with Jeffries when you think about a creaking veteran of Fitzsimmons was for the most part making a real mess of prime Big Jeff for most of the fight before Jeff slogged him down late) - he was obviously a freakish fighter as he was.

 

I don't like "What If" he or they were different then what they actually were type stuff...... Bobby Fitz was around 6' tall and anywhere from 160 to 182 pounds throughout his career...... That was his frame-size and build....... His diet was good and he was strong.... Christ, Bobby Fitz had good sized biceps for his size....... BUT! As a heavyweight fighter, floating around in a time machine, I just do NOT see Bobby Fitz doing very well through the 20th century against many of the ex-title holders who fought......

Bobby Fitz prolly could've held up well enough against the majority of 175 pound champs over the years and decades, but I can name a few dudes come post 1950 who'd prolly be too skilled and too much for "The Fighting Blacksmith" at 175........

At 160, I gotta assume Bobby Fitz was a bit weak there..... He obviously had to starve and dry-out a bit to make 160...... Even for the times of the 1880s & 1890s, 160 pounds had to be a struggle for Fitz....

MR.BILL:hat

 

I did a post on here, where I updated Fitzsimmons accomplishments to 100 years later, and while i havent had time to fully look at his record and consider it (i will one day), it became obvious to me that Fitzsimmons achieved an awful lot more at heavyweight than he is given credit for, nowadays, even by some of his hardcore supporters.

Forgetting about size, Fitz as a heavyweight has a record that is every bit comparable with guys like Holyfield and Tyson, who are often in people's top 10 and never out of top 20 lists. The harsh reality, is that Fitzy has a better KO record against top opponents than Tyson, and that is a scary thought. In fact, his one punch power (for its time at the very least) is on par or better than Tyson's.

Like it or not, the losses to Jeffries were past prime, and he was not necessarilly any closer to his prime in those fights than Ali was against Spinks or Dempsey against Tunney, Louis against Charles etc. In fact, his effort there was phenomenal, when you think about it.

His strength was his one punch power, and i agree with your thoughts. This would not be questioned if he was 200-220 lbs, which incidentally would place him on par in size terms with about a Tyson. Even if his record did not improve any, i think that today's fans would see him gather an awful lot of support.

 

I do see what you're saying and I personally give Fitz loads of respect for everything he did - It's unfathomable to me that someone weighing 11 stone 12 pounds could win a heavyweight title but he did it - but then again Corbett at 13 stone 4pounds (which was heavy for him) was hardly huge (he usually averaged 12 stone 12 pounds himself. Weights and weight differences were a loosely adhered to issue in those days - you have to remember weight divisions themselves were still a relatively new thing only 10-15 years on from the bareknuckle ringmen before. Fitzsimmons wasn't even really a heavyweight in his own time (and nor was Corbett for his entire career) but then again Fitz did knockout the 312lb 'Human Freight Train' Ed Dunkhorst inside 3 minutes - anyone who averages 165-175 and who can stop behemoths up to and beyond 100lbs heavier than themselves must have been an uncannily remarkable puncher. No one can dispute that. And according to the book Jack Johnson & His Times Jack Johnson himself said he beleived Fitzsimmons was probably the hardest punching of all the heavyweight champs when he was in his prime (obviously of the champs Jack saw in his lifetime that is. And whether he meant that in a literal sense or a p-4-p sense is not clear).

I am baffled, he did cut the most unlikely figure as a heavyweight champ with his alarmingly thin legs and knock-kneed stance, stiff backed, fiery tempered at times and apparently prone to eccentric prancing around the ring - at the very least I'd be concerned for him against a really massive puncher - and the truth is he didn't make one succesful defence of the title - and all his defeats came by the knockout route - and on film from the Corbett fight at least they both looked a little pitter-patter in that one, very tentative, and both very capable of knocking away eachothers jabs (apparently in those days conduct was almost as discussable as the rules and apparently Corbett would routinely request no inside punching in pre-fight mulling over the rules with referees which is farcical when you think about it - but Corbett and Fitz do both come across as constantly trying to make a nuisance of themselves and would not be above anything in trying to get an edge before proceedings began.

Respect where respect is due though - an old Fitz was giving a young Jeffries a thorough working over by all accounts before he got caught - could a young Fitz of beaten Jeffries handily?

Most fighters of the period seemed to have a lot of respect for Bob, Legendary Lightweight artiste Joe Gans for one:

"I consider Bob Fiotzsimmons as one of the greatest exponents of straight hitting that the prize ring has ever known. Fitz was a wonderful fighter and all of his straight punches were very effective. Until age set in and his hands went back on him there were few fighters able to withstand that famous shift of his. When Fitz delivered a blow he carried the whole weight of his body with it.

I think everyone needs to remind themselves that the early prize fighters were the pioneers really - they simply had no yardstick but also nothing to watch and learn from - they had to do it from scratch. It was another style of fighting altogether and unless we account for what constituted a good win or simply a good showing in whatever era they fought in then we can not fairly compare - wouldn't all fighters fight differently if all brought up under the same conditions and rules etc?

 

Ability wise he isn't close to being a top100 HW, resume wise Buster Douglas and Oliver McCall have him beat

 

Your posts getting worse and worse :-(

 

Fitzsimmons came in 20th in the IBRO poll of greatest heavyweights.

Yes--Fitz weight of 167 to 172 at heavyweight DQ's him in the eyes of those who are unfamiliar with Fitzsimmons career. IF Fitz weighed 200 pounds, those unfamiliar with his career would assume he could compete at heavyweight.

Fitzsimmons was a master strategist, and lethal puncher. He produced three fatalities from boxing related injuries, and flattened most of the top contenders of his day with KO's. It did not matter if they were 260 LBS.

Fitz might have a 100+ un-recorded fights.

Nat Fleisher, who saw them all from Corbett to Frazier, said Fitz was the best knock out puncher. Even if Nat is a bit off, this is still high praise.

 

Janitor, Boilermaker I get your point and the answer is a resounding yes.
Fitz was much more than a puncher he was very cany. indeed this was his main attribute while his weakness was that he could be caught by the big punchers like Choynski and Maher; even Corbett dropped him heavely.Makes me think he'd be vurnerable to Dempsey, Langford, Loius, Marciano et al but in fairness he had great recuperative powers. As an aside Jeffries struggled a bit too much for me,to put an aging Fitz away.

 

:huh

 

I strongly recommend Pollack's recent book on Jeffries, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ring-James-J-Jeffries/dp/0979982219/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264359167&sr=8-1"]

This content is protected

[/ame]

People who saw the fight considered it to be a GREAT fight. Nobody thought Fitzsimmons was "creaking". Sullivan and Gans commented on what a wonder Fitzsimmons still was.
I forget if Jeffries-Fitzsimmons was 25 or 20 round, but an 8th round KO shouldn't be called "late".
People who saw the fight understood that, from the get go, Fitz was indeed "making a real mess" of Jeffries face -- AND that Jeffries was digging into Fitzsimmons body. By the 5th round it was apparent that Bob was begining to weaken. It wasn't like Fitzsimmons tortured Jeffries, then Jeff caught him. Jeffries administered a gradual but cumulative body breakdown.
Both guys made a "real mess" of each other, but the mess Fitzsimmons made was more visible and more superficial.

 

I prefer to envision him against super middles. Very intriguing at times, and personally feel if the reports are true Fitz didn't always fight like he did against Corbett: and thank God because face with Corbett he was ugly and awkward as Hell .

However he got the job done. Against less physically dominating opponents I imagine he'd 'come out of his shell' so to speak.

And although Fitz may not be as 'developed' to use a horrible word, he would be an awkward and hard hitting opponent for anyone between 168-175 due to the fact he clearly had immense power but accounting for suposed refinement in punching technique, Fitz gloves would make the punches an intense and uncomfortable experience for 'modern' fighters.

Although I'm not in the camp who over eggs him to the point where I refuse to accept he can ever lose, I'm willing to accept he could at least hold his own long enough to do some serious damage.