I don't often think about Bob Fitzsimmons nor partake in many discussions on him here, but his career has quite a bit to offer history in my opinion. He won world titles at middleweight, lightheavyweight and heavyweight. of his 60 wins, 51 came via KO. He maintained most of his power even as he jumped weight classes, something that most fighters don't often do. He was knocking plenty of much bigger guys senseless, and gave hell to a prime James Jeffries on two occasions despite a 40 Lb, 4 inch size difference, and over a decade difference in age. Fought a number of undefeated fighters with mixed results, but plenty of wins... Not bad for a blacksmith from Australia...
I think Ruby Bob was a TRUE GREAT, and had the psycho-physical endowments to be great in any era. If he came along today and if environmental influences yielded a bit bigger-framed fighter, if he built up a little, and got the right hvwywt champ infront of him, he could still concievable win the big crown. But even if he didn't, there's no reason a fellow of his toughness, vitality, cunning, coordination, quickness and freak punch power wouldn't develope into a terror for fighters of his own size.
He certianly made the very best of what he had. In all the books and literature that I have read regarding boxing, it is often mentioned that Fitzsimmons was not a man who most would have thought could be a fighter let alone a champion. His body was somewhat disproportionate and from his appearance, he did not look as though he possesed much athleticism. Needless to say, many of his opponents probably thought the same thing and look at what happened to most of them. He obviously had the courage of a lion, because to trade in close with some of the dangerous men who he fought and come out a winner, took more than most guys had. He was a small guy even for heavyweight standards of the day, and without natural talent. Fitz was a workhoarse, plain and simple.
Bob Fitzsimmons is one of the most enjoyable fighters to learn about because whatever preconceptions you start with they will always get turned on their head. It is hard to get your head round the fact that a supermiddleweight was so efective at finishing off fighters who would be classed as heavyweights today. Inevitably you start out skeptical and get drawn a bit closer to the position of Nat Fleischer than you expected. What stands out above all, is that his anatomical knowledge and ability to capitalise on it in terms of boxing technique were perhaps unsurpased in the history of the sport. Whatever conclusions you reach about his era, his style, and how it compares to fighters from other eras you still see the absolute perfection of punching and finishing technique welded into his style.
Where do you come up with such a ridiculous assertion? Fitz was an absolute athletic freak of nature, possessing some of the very greatest power, lb. for lb., the ring has ever seen. Furthermore, he was noted as a youth champion runner and excellent rugby player. I am still not sure what the much-bandied-about word "athleticism" means, but this power he possessed was a natural, God-given talent, never outdone and rarely duplicated in the century that followed him. He regularly flattened opponents who outweighed him by 30 or more pounds well into his 40's and moving from middleweight to heavyweight. Not amount of workhorse tenacity could have achieved such.
Fitzsimmons does not realy fit neatly into his own era or any other. He was in part self taught, and developed techniques and training methods that nobody else used. Joe Gans got a job carrying Fitzsimmons spit bucket to learn from him. Jim Jeffries and Gene Tunney both tried to emulate Fitzsimmons punching techniques.
This came from books and things that I read or heard over the years, and I meant it as a compliment from the standpoint that he was able to acheive tremendous things despite what other said of his appearance. This thread is an appreciation piece to Fitzsimmons, not a platform to criticize him.
Despite his size, he was a very strong man, who developed his strength from long years of manual labor. Fitz was apparently a black smith for some time.
Manual labour is a funny thing. A manual labourer will not beat a weightlifter in a bench press contest but they develop subtle all round strength for performing awkward actions that you can never really replicate in the gym. I was a refuse collector for two years before I took up weightlifting and I got a clear idea of the difference. When I gave up the bins and took up the weights I got stronger and bigger but perhaps lost some things.
They call this " functional strength ", and I have had similar experiences. I used to do a lot of outdoor manual labour including, working with concrete, asphault, landscaping, moving furnature, etc.. I now sit in an office all day, but go to the gym regularly. Even though I can lift more weight in such exercises as squats, leg presses, bench press, Curls, shoulder press, etc. I still get tired more quickley in the rare event that I have to carry a heavy object up a set of stairs. Some good exercises to incorporate into your routine for mainting functional strength, are medicine ball exercises, dead lifts, pull-ups, push-ups, cable exercises and swimming....
His frame was one of the most impressive things about him, and the same would hold true if he came along in any era. I can't say the same for his skills though, unless we're considering if he'd been born into the modern era rather than whisked here in a time machine. If the former were true I expect he'd have been one hell of a force.
I didn't mean to snap, it's just that Fitz was something of a specimen, not in the eye test way (which is no way to judge a boxer), but in the functional way, in the way of the almost unequaled power he got on his punches. He and Langford are the two real amazing freaks of that era.
Watched ancient film of Fitz-Corbett Wicked left hooks to body by the way, I heard there was a book about on Peter Maher--be interesting to see what it says about his fight with Fitz where Wyatt Earp gave MAher the fight on a bogus foul