Pre 1900 heavyweights.

A far-reaching prediction. McCoy could not take a big punch, and wasn't always on the winning end of a decision.

He lost to Root, Carter, Corbett ( KO ), Sharkey ( KO ), and McCormick ( KO and black mark on his record ) from 1899-1903.

Sorry, Fitz is more skilled than anyone here, save Corbett and that's arguable, and hit harder than anyone on the list.

He'd finish McCoy. While I do think McCoy can hit, had mobility and could punch, he didn't hit hard enough to stop Fitz, nor was he strong enough in the clinch fighting ( as Corbett was ).

I'd pick Fitz via mid round KO in a 20 round match.

 

McCoy was in terrible shape for Root. It is quite likely that Root hit low in the 2nd round and McCoy couldn't recuperate from those foul blows.

Carter bout was another example of McCoy being careless. He easily was Carter's master up to the point he was caught. Still one Philadelphia paper ruled it a draw, and another thought the bout was pretty much even, but hesitantly gave slight advantage to Carter for being the aggressor.

Corbett bout was controversial.

Sharkey bout actually could be considered a proof that McCoy's wasn't so fragile, it took Sharkey many rounds to wear the Kid down. Had the knockdowns been scored earlier in the round, the Kid could have stopped Sharkey.

McCormick bout was fluke as was agreed by ALL experts.

Kid McCoy was more skilled than Fitz, it's laughable to even question that.

 

I dont understand the idea that Fitz was so skilled. We can see him on film. If skills equate walking around the ring like a pawing mummy, totally clueless, looking for one punch then yes he was skilled. Thats my idea of the antithesis of skilled though.

 

Senya13,

Lots of excuses there and for a McCoy backer to cry foul is a bit funny as the Kid had some fouls that would be direct DQ's these days.

Careless, not ready, a fluke, etc... all within a short window of time.

I'd lay long odds that Fitz flattens him.

 

The fighters and writers of the times say he has good skills. The writers of Greb's time called him Amateurish.

Fair and balanced statements, right?

When you are a freakish puncher, dangerous at any range, crafty, with the stamina to fight all night, you're a tough out. The Papers of the times said he had cobra-like hand speed too.

 

You can consider them excuses, I see them as details that need to be considered, not every loss is the same.

McCoy-Root bout was considered very dirty, rough and full of fouls. Bat Masterson, the referee, was called "entirely incompetent" and "simply impossible". The rules called for clean breaks, but no word of caution was coming from Masterson, who seemed to be afraid to go near the fighters. The seconds were loudly coaching their boxers, but Masterson refused to pay notice.

 

You can find plenty of examples where contemporary writers called McCoy the most skilled fighter of the time, possibly with the exception of Corbett, some didn't even take that exception.

 

Most skills do not equal best, especially at heavyweight. To make it to the top here, you need some durability. And if you don't have good durability, you better have elite level power or superior size to minimize the weakness.

The best heavies McCoy fought in Corbett, and Sharkey beat him via stoppage. And because he wasn't durable, McCoy was upset by the likes of McCormick via KO.

I'm not saying McCoy wasn't skilled. He hit hard for his weight, and was mobile, but he's no real threat to Fitzsimmons. McCoy was supposed to fight Jeffries, but the fight was canceled.

 

I'll take contemporary experts opinions over yours, sorry. Corbett predicted McCoy would be heavyweight champion of the world in a couple of years after seeing him outclass Dan Creedon for the middleweight title.

 

Unfortunately for Fitz those times were predominated by little more than barroom brawlers and local toughmen. I dont need to worry about what they wrote though because I can see for myself how he fought.

Some did. Others called him peerless. Some compared him to Johnny Dundee, who was a terrific fighter. Who to believe. Decisions decisions.

The bottom line is whether Fitz or Greb LOOKED skilled is neither here nor there. Results are what matters. Ricardo Mayorgo looked like he never took a formal boxing lesson in his life but he has some very nice wins and fights to his name. That being said Im never going to pretend that because Mayorga got results he was skilled. Same with Fitz. Whether Greb was skilled or not I could care less. I think he was. He illustrated plenty of times and was written about plenty of times that he could fight in several different styles, classical boxing being one. Was he called amateurish? Yes. Was he called awkward? Yes. At the end of the day does it matter? Not to me. Ive always said he would probably not look aesthetically pleasing if we found film of him but the results are what matters. Nobody talks about Greb because he was such a beautiful boxer. Thats why its odd to be lauding Fitzsimmons skills. Even relative to his era we can see he was a one trick pony. Strong, stalking, willing to take a punch to land one. Trudging forward and trying to force exchanges. But I dont think of skills, even for that limited era, when I think of Fitz.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

.

This content is protected

 

It was godd*mned effective.

I believe results reveal skills more than skills yield results. He was obviously able to set traps and pull the trigger in tight windows. Even when he got older, and apparently changed his style a bit, he was impressive.

 

Yes that was well put, plenty of food for thought.



But you will never change that guy no matter what you say he thinks he is always right.

 

A typical post from you, very dismissive as usual, what counts is his record and what contemporaries said. He doesn't have to fight guys from the 70's or whatever era he had to fight his contemporaries. Kid McCoy is on film sparring Corbett and he looks like a windmill.... maybe Greb was influenced directly or indirectly by him but anyway he does not exhibit too many great skills and Corbett seems to have his measure especially when McCoy tries his left hook easily slipping it and attacking the body but this is silent film and big chance someone is directing them, even Corbett himself................ it is also 1912 so not exactly their prime so you have to wind up their speed and then maybe they look more impressive.

The tiny bit of film of Fitz against Corbett is in such bad condition I cannot see how you can tell much about his skills there, but he won as usual and that is what matters. It seems I can now put Fitz in with Darcy and Dempsey and Jeanette as fighters you have no time for.