Middleweight Tournament Round 2: Fitzsimmons vs Robinson

All this seems beside the point I raised. His speed and technique did not allow him to defeat noticably larger opponents.

 

Pure speculation. Why bend this just to make your own points seem valid?

Even under Fitz's era rules Robinson would batter him. Fitz was super strong but he's gonna be trying to grapple with someone who isn't there. Even if he does Ray will be unloading combos left right and centre on the way in.

it's like me saying 'let's assume Arguello realises he struggles against boxers so he gets fast feet and throws flashier eye-catching combos to stealr ounds'.

If one of your faves isn't favoured to win, don't go imagining new aspects of his repertoire :good

 

You can't really assume Fitz would do something we've never seen him do before, sorry. At the same time I can't comment on how Robinson would do against Fitz in the latter's era under the latter's rules and regulations, although I imagine the transition would be easier for Ray than vice versea.

 

Why? Pep lost to Sammy Angott, the lightweight champion.

 

Like who? Angott?

 

"but he's gonna be trying to grapple with someone who isn't there."

You can run but you can't hide. Robinson will be there sooner or later. He was there for a plodder like LaMotta, and Fitz is certainly faster afoot and of hand than Jake, off the film. Fitz doesn't need something new. I was only pointing out that he held his hands lower for two reasons--he had to fight a much longer distance, and he had to protect his body. Body punches with the smaller gloves were far more damaging. By the way, another old cliche which is going to come into play here "kill the body and the head dies too." Fitz will be "hitting him in the slats" as they used to say and I think that will sap Robinson badly.

 

Well, who was the biggest good fighter Pep defeated?

 

So that's your reasoning? Pep lost once in 60 plus fights to a tough 135 pounder in Angott (in a fight scored very closely nonetheless) and you use that to downplay the effectiveness of speed and technique versus size. The gap in technique between Pep and Angott (who's mauling style would be rough for Pep regardless of size advantage anyway) isn't as great as the gap between Fitz and Robinson anyway. Remember, these two are from completely different eras.

 

Newspapers aren't that reliable nowadays but Media has changed a lot since Fitz's day and I have little to no evidence myself (without investigating media representation and potential fallacies from around that time which may blow a whole can of worms open on the 'nespaper scheme' although I'll assume they were genuinely providing a service back in the day and not bullshitting) to prove thy aren't accurate reports.

But I guarantee you if you took Ray Robinson back then the newspaper reports would be even more hyperbolic; they would be dazzled and probably proclaim the 2nd coming of Jesus.

 

Future lightweight champ Paddy DeMarco.

 

Fleaman posted in Post #120 above that Pep would probably have been the featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight champion before the war and I responded by pointing out he actually lost to the lightweight champion.

My point--what is the evidence that despite his great speed and skill, Pep could beat good bigger men. I don't think there is any. And Robinson never proved he could beat anyone above a middleweight. Size does matter.

 

They couldn't really get much more hyperbolic than you fellows have, not stopping with just considering Robinson the greatest p4p fighter of all time, but taking flying leaps into the dark about how he will defeat easily fighters with great records even if they are somewhat bigger (Fitz) or even much bigger (Corbett).

I consider Robinson the best p4p fighter of them all, but even I have to pause at escalating the praise from his just being Sugar Ray to being Super Ray, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, etc.

He actually had an in and out record at middle, and the opposition was not that severe.