Joe Louis v Robert Fitzsimmons

As they were at their best, would pick Louis, though a Fitz victory by KO is not implausible.

If they'd both come along at the same time ... would lean on Louis, but Fitzsimmons would be a very dangerous foe.

 

Louis KO1

 

I just see Fitzsimmons being overwhelmed.

 

I guess Louis wins by stoppage in this one against yet another much smaller opponent , but not before being hurt and going down as usual.

 

Bob Fitzsimmons was a counterpuncher who worked withing verry narrow margins of safety. He made his opponent miss by as narrow a margin as possibleto set up his counters and had to be prepared to take a few.

I suspect Joe Louis probably represents the point where this strategy of narrow margins comes unstuck. With Louis's combinations he is not so much going to be dodging a bullet as a burst from an Uzi.

 

I think this an excellent summation,Louis's quick two handed salvos would probably undo Fitz, but he would be in harms way the whole time.

 

So do I. Good big man versus good little man.

That I would find this matchup intriguing is a real tribute to a man as small as Fitz.

 

Joe Louis KO 2 Bob Fitzsimmons

 

Fitz was dropped by Corbett, possibly for a fair full count, and admitted afterward in his dressing room that Corbett's speed was too much for him to deal with in the early going. (Of course we have the Rector footage to judge this deficit for ourselves.) If Joe hit him with what Corbett decked him with, he definitely wouldn't beat the count, whether Donovan or Siler was doing the counting. Louis was not intimidated by power, and Fitz never had Conn's chin or mobility, although he was more than respectable in both departments.

 

! would favor Joe Louis/A killing machine
But lets put this in proper perspective...Fitz in 1997, the year he fought Corbett was thirty four years old..
Louis when he was thirty four years old was past his prime, eked out a decision from Jersey Joe Walcott...
So the question should be Louis at the same age {34], against Fitz in 1897 , when at the age of 34 he kod Corbett...Who wins ?

 

Corbett was a runner, Louis was not. Louis was a blazing fast combination puncher whose combination of speed and power would likely be too much.

 

Louis kayoed Jersey Joe Walcott at age 34. Walcott was better than both fitz and corbett.

 

Accounts I have read by eyewitnesses, state that Fitz lost his footing and clasped Corbett about the legs as he fell with no knockdown punch being landed.This can be found in the Book Of Boxing edited by WC HEINZ.

 

Are we comparing apples and oranges though? As Joe started earlier, so it might be expected he'd peak earlier. (That Fitz won the light heavyweight title at 40 is remarkable. That he did it via 20 round decision is staggering.)

Walcott was actually older than Louis (and Moore claimed to be even older than Walcott), who looked fine against Mauriello. I just don't think Louis was ever really comfortable with tactics reminiscent of those Pastor gave him some trouble with a decade earlier.

Burt, I suspect this is more a matter of styles than age. At 5'11," and with a 71-1/2" reach, it seemed to me that Fitz tended to box tall (at least according to the limited footage of him I've recently reviewed). It might have worked for a wizard like Loughran against Louis, but I'm not so certain this would pan out so well for Fitz. Your thoughts?