Middleweight Tournament: Quarter Final - Charley Burley vs Robert Fitzsimmons

A better match would be Barkley vs Fitz.

 

Fleaman,
Fitz beat Robinson in the last round. To be honest, i think it is the only objective call that could be made. This may be a tougher fight for fitz.

I dont understand how you can say that the bunch of individuals throw objectivity out the window and vote for older fighters when the reality is that there are a large bunch of people who always vote on these things that throw objectivity out the window and vote against the older fighters solely because of either when they were born, or because they dont know enough about them or their opponents.

I am sure, if you read the Robinson/Fitzsimmons thread, you started to learn much more about Fitzsimmons and i have never met anyone who hasnt improved their rating of Fitz, with the more you learn about him. It is doubtful that he will win this tournament, because most people will use the primitive tag. It is ironic here, because Charlie Burley debuted in 1936. Fitzsimmons had his last fight in 1910 and while he was old by this time, he was probably still one of, if not the best middleweights in the world. That is not much time at all. In fact, when Fitz retired, the world heavyweight champion was Jack Johnson. In the 1930s, An ancient Jack Johnson (who used a similar stance and style to Fitz) manged to beat a world class heavyweight in Brad Simmons. Given that No one has seen Fitz fight as a middleweight (where he was the undisputed hardest puncher ever) and there is virtually no tape of Burley either, the primitive reason just isnt sensible for this particular matchup.

 

Old Fitzsimmons beating Robinson was certainly an upset I didn't see coming but I guess this tournament would be rather uninteresting if we didn't have any surprising outcomes.

I agree with what people have been saying here. Burley was durable and didn't take any chances. Fitzsimmons would find the clever and unorthodox Burley impossible to counter and Burley's superior speed would tell in all the exchanges.

Burley wins a decision.

 

Again, assuming I don't know what I'm on about. I do know about these guys, and have seen some footage of Fitz obviously. I go with what I see.

I have read posts upon posts and excerpts from newspaper reports put on here, and then when I saw Fitz I thought 'well, the papers were as full of hyperbole then as they are now'. The people of that time would've found these guys very technical, but we can see now that this is , and it's not a great word, but it IS 'primitive'.

Are you telling me that the example I cited, JimmyShimmy, is an objective poster?????atsch

 

What have you seen of Fitz? A grainy clip where he KOd the best heavyweight in the world? With a solar plexus, left hook combination? Or was that combo too fast for the camera? Anyway, which middleweight have you seen throw a better and more impressive combination that that (if that is what you are basing it on).

Come to think of it, are you basing it on the 40 year plus Super middleweight/light heavyweight shot version of Fitz that still went about 12 rounds against a World title heavyweight challenger, if so, which middleweight have you witnessed fight against such a formiddable foe and do so well, at such an advanced age.

 

burley wins ud ,fitz power would tell against robinson but burley would be harder to catch with a clean shot and although maybe rocked a few times burley is physically strong enough to stay on his feet and hold when necessary .

 

Again, see my views on ALL fighters of that era, not just Fitz.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to argue this any further. If people think I'm running due to lack of knowledge or reasonable comparison look through the other 1000 times I have explained my poisiton on this.

I appreciate the discussions we have but this is something we're just going to have to disagree on Boilermaker:good

 

"Primitive", is that how you would describe Mike Tyson's performance against Kevin McBride? because i would.

How about Muhammed Ali Vs Trevor Berbick or Larry Holmes. Now that was primitive. Schoolboy technical flaws, Laying on the ropes etc. Even the Ali Foreman fight would be amazingly primitive if watched on grainy film with half the frames missing.

This is a good fight and in the coming days i hope to analyse it. Tell me this though, since it seems that so far, if Burley wins, it is on points. Was there ever a fighter around that actually beat Fitzimmons on points over 15 rounds? Or even who looked like being ahead of him? Just because a fighter is a power hitter and not a dancer or runner, doesnt necessarilly mean that he doesnt win on points. Fitz hit harder than anyone Burley faced, including Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles. Fitz might counterpunch, but he will also be the agressor.

 

Mr Butt, why do you think that burley would be harder to catch than Sugar Ray? I would have thought at first instance that Sugar was faster and a little more highly rated defensively, if anything. Or do you think that Burley was Simply better than Ray.

 

I definitely understand that it must get tiresome after a while to rehash these points, but I wondered if I could have your opinion on the following:

I think that to some degree, 'proper' boxing technique is overrated. Don't get me wrong: some styles are superior to others, and there's a massive difference between a trained boxer and a guy off the street. That isn't what I'm getting at.

Rather, I think that there are many ways to approach fisticuffs. Some things that don't work when you have one way of fighting (leaning back, rising blocks, etc.) may work better for a guy with a different style. Very few top fighters have what I'd describe as a "textbook" style--they all have technical flaws, and they've been playing this game for YEARS. They do pretty well, though.

I think that what fighters like Fitz and Johnson and Corbett had wasn't just a "primitive" version of today's style, but a different fighting system that fit together and made sense in its own context. If a modern boxer just adopted one or two pieces of their game, those pieces would become "flaws". If they adopted the entire style lock,stock, and barrel, things would be different because the system is designed to correct its own flaws with techniques that modern boxers don't use anymore.

That's not to say that older styles are perfect for the modern ring, because they're not. But they're still very serviceable.

Why do I think this?

Because fighters are basically practical people. They learn quickly. If they keep getting nailed with a right hand every time they drop their jab, they'll correct the mistake on their own. Hypothetically, if you put two guys on a desert island with a pair of boxing gloves and left them there for ten years, they'd develop a relatively effective style of boxing. Now imagine that instead of two guys, you have thousands of professional fighters all honing their craft for decades.

That's what had happened before Fitzsimmons. Gloved boxing already existed for 100+ years by the time Fitz first slipped the mufflers on.

So why does it look different from today's style?

Two reasons. First, the rules were a little different and the gloves are smaller. Admittedly, modern boxing is somewhat better for the modern ring.Second--and I can't emphasize this enough--there's more than one way to skin a cat. The style of fistfighting that develops in one country may be very different from the one that develops in a different country. Both will work. Heck, even different gyms have different styles.

 

i just think robinson would of got caught by fitzsimmons because he may of become overconfident afrter being ahead and landing quick combinations may of stayed in range a bit too long and fitzs had the power to make him pay.burley i dont see making that mistake.only my humble opinion

 

robinson did not want to fight burley

 

The Classic Forum is getting pretty ridiculous.