Pre 1900 heavyweights.

I agree with this. For instance George Foreman was very effective (and not disimilar to Fitz in style) but he wasnt very skilled at all IMO. Im not arguing that Fitz wasnt effective. I think he was one of the greatest pure punchers in history. Im just saying calling him skilled or one of the more skilled guys of the era I disagree with. I dont think he was particularly skilled. At least not in the manner that term is being applied. Was Mayorga effective? Yes. Was Mayorga skilled applying his unusual abilities? Yes. Was he SKILLED? Not in the least. Thats my point.

 

You took a wrong turn, the Les Darcy forum is somewhere else.

And for the record, just because you only have a little bit of poor quality Fitzsimmons film doesnt mean I only have a little bit of poor quality Fitzsimmons film.

 

I think that there is great confusion around the term "skilled". Personally i think that Rocky Marciano is one of the most skilled fighters i have seen on film. Fights from a crouch, puts his weight behind every single punch or combination he throws, tucks his head in, keeps his hands up is relatively hard to hit cleanly (though he obviously takes more shots than the dancers).

However, most on here, deem skill differently, but i dont think that you have to dance away at distance to be skilled. Joe Louis is another who i think demonstrates as much skill as is possible. I couldnt say Muhammed Ali (who i think head to head is the best heavyweight ever) has that much skill, with the way leans back, drops his hands etc, but with his reflexes and style he is probably the hardest to hit and most effective fighter either. Fitz is similar, though different style of course. He does plenty of things wrong by both the standards of his time and modern standards. But, he is effective. He was not (that often) hit cleanly and he nearly always hit his opponent cleanly. In this sense, i dont see how his "skills" can be doubted.

In fact, given that his unorthodox approach means that very few if any would be capable of replicating his style, technically he is extremely skilled to pull it off.

 

I know a guy who thinks he's always right. Once he was wrong and admitted it, but later learned he was actually right. Funny stuff. Of course he's wrong as much as anyone else is. Any historians who haven't changed opinions really isn't a historian at all.

When it comes to fighter pre-1910, the films can be pretty bad, and the technique can look a little off, but the technique does not define power as punchers are " born " not " made ".

Fitz had good speed, knew where to hit, and whipcord-like muscles. He'd land and shift his weight into a punch driving it deeply into his target if possible. Fitz killed three men from boxing. Two in official fights, the other in a sparring session.

Nat Fleischer, editor, and founder of the ring said Fitz was the best KO artists and had a harder hook than Louis or Dempsey. Even if he's off by a small margin, this puts Fitzsimmons in elite company.

One day I hope to see Fitz vs Ruhlin. It was filmed, and the KO was a very good one.