Roy Jones v. Fitzsimmons

The film is biased towards Jones. We have to imagine Fitzsimmons the way the news reporters described him.

 

Fitz wasn't slow of hand. Defense is an issue but he's game as hell and delivers paralyzing punches. Roy might took superior until Fitz lands.

 

As someone who thinks Jones probably wins, perhaps I can explain why I think that a reasonable person might back Fitz.

Fitzsimmons clearly fights differently than a modern boxer, and would be laughed at if he showed up in a modern gym trying to fight that way.

But the question is whether Fitzsimmons's style was the result of ignorance, or whether it developed because the rules (small gloves, long rounds, lots of grappling, permissive ref) favored people who fought that way.

If it's incompetence, Jones wins.

If it's due to the rules, things get tricky. Jones might still win due to the gulf between eras in talent pool and training, but it's a lot harder to tell. We just don't have elite fighters who use anything like Fitz's style anymore to be able to make a firm guess.

 

Here I may have to disagree. First, the reporters didn't see modern boxers to compare. Second, reporters have traditionally been over-flowery and not very good at evaluating boxing with an expert's eye. Third, the film is good enough that we can use it to some degree; disregarding it for written analysis can easily be taken too far into "Do you believe me or your lying eyes?" territory.

It's a good supplement, but I think film should be heavily weighted where available. I acknowledge the obvious problems with the poor film of the era, tho.

 

Are you trying to tell us that religion works that way?

 

I'm trolling ... sorry. Just wanted to see if I could make somebody blow a gasket

I guess Fitz has a puncher's chance but I'd put money on RJJ to win.

 

Roy can probably only use his jab and he still wins.
Roy wins any which way he wants and in any round he wants. The gap in skill is astronomical. Roy is superior in every possible way.
Fitzsimmons wouldn't even beat an amateur nowadays, let alone a prime Roy, who is nigh on invincible.

 

Roy's a guaranteed winner, Fitzsimmons stands no chance whatsoever, ****ing none.

 

Great post, spot on.

 

So ridiculous. So just like religion, don't trust your own opinion and common sense- trust what you're being told.... Don't trust what you see yourself because people smarter or better somehow are telling you what to think...

We have film! Yet I'm supposed to "imagine the way" hes described by contemporary writers?

Ok you do that. I know what I'm looking at.

The film is biased towards Jones because it's obvious he is superior in about every way on film.

 

Some actually do.

 

First of all, Tarver and Calzaghe did not beat a prime Roy.
Second of all, Tarver and Calzaghe are a million times better than Fitzsimmons.

 

If you're talking under Fitz's rules, it's not a one-sided argument where only insane or ignorant people would pick Fitz. (Does Roy also beat Hakuho Sho at sumo? Buakaw in kickboxing?)

As I noted above, I think Roy wins. I'd place my bets on the sport having genuinely improved in talent, training, and perhaps rule-independent technique. But I don't think the people picking Fitz are loons.

 

What rule do you see favoring Fitzsimmons and how exactly ?!? I'm genuinely curious.

They might not be loons, but they are nostalgics who can't look at things objectively.
Fitzsimmons can't even beat someone like Canelo, let alone RJJ.