Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Dick Tiger [Archive]

McGrain

03-13-2010, 03:39 AM

Really?

I think Fitzsimmons could adapt to more modern ruleset pretty well and Tiger would do well in an earlier ruleset as his strength is immense.

IMO they are both MADE for the opposite ruleset, they would be fine, but if Fitzsimmons is stepping out of a time machine and into a 1960's ring, that's very different from being suited to a given style - you see?

One thing worth thinking about is that Tiger can't KO Fitz - but Fitz can KO tiger. So given that this is the case, Tiger favours the shorter distance. Hard to imagine Tiger outworking Fitz for 20 rounds, for example, without coming a cropper.

As an aside, would you pick any man ever weighing in at 152 or less to beat the Fitz that beat Dempsey, under his own ruleset? I think Fitz might be the best fighter in history head to head.

turpinr

03-13-2010, 03:39 AM

Really?

I think Fitzsimmons could adapt to more modern ruleset pretty well and Tiger would do well in an earlier ruleset as his strength is immense.i think tiger is overrated but would still beat rudy robert

bodhi

03-13-2010, 06:06 AM

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:12 AM

That's a very interesting claim. Why?

Well, who do you pick to beat him at 152lbs under the ruleset that governed Fitz and Dempsey? Demspey was past his best but he was also seen as absolutley peerless. And he was absolutley crushed. Fitz was a quality boxer with enough power to stop big HW's. Hard to make a pick a ww/small mw against him.

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 06:18 AM

IMO they are both MADE for the opposite ruleset, they would be fine, but if Fitzsimmons is stepping out of a time machine and into a 1960's ring, that's very different from being suited to a given style - you see?

One thing worth thinking about is that Tiger can't KO Fitz - but Fitz can KO tiger. So given that this is the case, Tiger favours the shorter distance. Hard to imagine Tiger outworking Fitz for 20 rounds, for example, without coming a cropper.

As an aside, would you pick any man ever weighing in at 152 or less to beat the Fitz that beat Dempsey, under his own ruleset? I think Fitz might be the best fighter in history head to head.

I think both men had styles that transcended their eras. Fitzsimmons is basically a counter-puncher, he is static but he would even do well in a modern ring IMO.

Again Tiger strong, tough as hell with a big workrate.

Thing is Fitzsimmons at times struggled when there was actual fighting (according to Fleaman) he was more of a boxer who would pick his shots by countering but when there was a trade off he wasnt as effective. I think if Tiger gets into a mid range distance he dominates with his strength and ability whilst trading.

Fitz however bosses it when he gets time and is at range, Tiger is going to have to take alot of punishment to get inside.

Well, who do you pick to beat him at 152lbs under the ruleset that governed Fitz and Dempsey? Demspey was past his best but he was also seen as absolutley peerless. And he was absolutley crushed. Fitz was a quality boxer with enough power to stop big HW's. Hard to make a pick a ww/small mw against him.

It is a good point. I automatically thought Emile Griffith, just his chin might let him down, but stylistically I think he would beat Fitzs fairly well.

bodhi

03-13-2010, 06:25 AM

Well, who do you pick to beat him at 152lbs under the ruleset that governed Fitz and Dempsey? Demspey was past his best but he was also seen as absolutley peerless. And he was absolutley crushed. Fitz was a quality boxer with enough power to stop big HW's. Hard to make a pick a ww/small mw against him.

Hm, I think Walker and the Barbados Deamon would have a very good chance. Don't know if I would make them a favourite though. What about Tommy Ryan? Griffith, who GPater picked, seems to be a good call although.

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 06:28 AM

Hm, I think Walker and the Barbados Deamon would have a very good chance. Don't know if I would make them a favourite though. What about Tommy Ryan? Griffith, who GPater picked, seems to be a good call although.

Just can Griffiths chin stand up too it, he looks to have had a decent chin but afew knockouts scatter the record and he was susceptible to one big punch.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:36 AM

I think both men had styles that transcended their eras. Fitzsimmons is basically a counter-puncher, he is static but he would even do well in a modern ring IMO.

Couter-puncher is ok, but he certainly wasn't a counter-puncher against Dempsey...as Janitor has pointed out and as his In The Ring so firmly surmised, he doesn't have an easy style to peg. I like trap-smith, i've just sort of made a style up to him - but all your head to head wonders have a bit of that, a dose of that "wtf" about them.

Thing is Fitzsimmons at times struggled when there was actual fighting (according to Fleaman) he was more of a boxer who would pick his shots by countering but when there was a trade off he wasnt as effective. I think if Tiger gets into a mid range distance he dominates with his strength and ability whilst trading.

There is something to this, possibly, but that's the thing with the trap-smith (copywrite McGrain) style, you want someone to fight aggressively. There is more than one contest involving Fitz where he was being swarmed and the other guy just dropped like he had been shot.

It is a good point. I automatically thought Emile Griffith, just his chin might let him down, but stylistically I think he would beat Fitzs fairly well.

Well he's a horrible style for anyone. I think it would be a very boring fight with Fitz maybe shading a decision on the aggression?

bodhi

03-13-2010, 06:37 AM

Just can Griffiths chin stand up too it, he looks to have had a decent chin but afew knockouts scatter the record and he was susceptible to one big punch.

True but he also beat a few very good punchers, no Fitz though. He would be very weary of Fitz' power and had the skills to avoid it.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:38 AM

Hm, I think Walker and the Barbados Deamon would have a very good chance. Don't know if I would make them a favourite though. What about Tommy Ryan? Griffith, who GPater picked, seems to be a good call although.

Ryan is a decent call, but Dempsey might be as clever and versatile and he got out-boxed, out-fought. I don't like the Walker or the Walcott calls because I just don't think a pressure fighter at these weights has any hope. They are getting hit properly at some point. Fitz is a Foster, let's not forget.

bodhi

03-13-2010, 06:46 AM

Ryan is a decent call, but Dempsey might be as clever and versatile and he got out-boxed, out-fought. I don't like the Walker or the Walcott calls because I just don't think a pressure fighter at these weights has any hope. They are getting hit properly at some point. Fitz is a Foster, let's not forget.

I think higher of Ryan than of Dempsey. I think he has a shout of being a Top3 p4p fighter before the 20s - alongside Fitz and Langford. Dempsey was very good when he fought Fitz, people thought he would beat everyone that night but Fitz. But he also was past it. I think Ryan was better prime for prime and we speaking of a prime Ryan instead of a slightly past-it Dempsey. Would be a great fight.

Walker is no face-first brawler though. He has some skills for himself and a very very good chin. Just look how much punishment Schmeling put on a bloated, past it but still very good Walker before he succumbed. And Schmeling was a very hard puncher himself. I think Walker's combination of pressure, skill and chin could very well see him prevail over Fitz.

Barbados Joe I think was stronger than Fitz, punches nearly as hard, has a good chin and some skills. I'd pick Fitz but in a trilogy I think Joe would take one and it could very well be the fight in question here. Fitz could be KOed and Walcott was a man who could KO him.

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 06:49 AM

Couter-puncher is ok, but he certainly wasn't a counter-puncher against Dempsey...as Janitor has pointed out and as his In The Ring so firmly surmised, he doesn't have an easy style to peg. I like trap-smith, i've just sort of made a style up to him - but all your head to head wonders have a bit of that, a dose of that "wtf" about them.

His style is weird as hell and he did vary it.

There is something to this, possibly, but that's the thing with the trap-smith (copywrite McGrain) style, you want someone to fight aggressively. There is more than one contest involving Fitz where he was being swarmed and the other guy just dropped like he had been shot.

I agree with trap-smith. Although I always think of Fitzsimmons as a tank.

Fairly static but looks to pick targets carefully with big punches, when being attacked keeps his cool and looks to slot one home, but can be overrun, if he does not get his shots off.

I also think he could change and be abit more aggresive and force his opponents to make mistakes then counter them, like what he did with Dempsey.

Well he's a horrible style for anyone. I think it would be a very boring fight with Fitz maybe shading a decision on the aggression?

I could see Griffith out-working him though.

PowerPuncher

03-13-2010, 06:51 AM

Fitz may have competed in a substandard era with a lesser standard, without better footage of the era its impossible to tell, but it is likely. Tiger had his limitatations in his own era but looks to be technically more sound, much busier and looked to be in better physical condition.

Without good footage of Fitz any thoughts are pure guess work

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:53 AM

I think higher of Ryan than of Dempsey. I think he has a shout of being a Top3 p4p fighter before the 20s - alongside Fitz and Langford. Dempsey was very good when he fought Fitz, people thought he would beat everyone that night but Fitz. But he also was past it. I think Ryan was better prime for prime and we speaking of a prime Ryan instead of a slightly past-it Dempsey. Would be a great fight.

Prime Ryan and that Dempsey are not one and the same, and they are rather different in my estimation anyway, but, in terms of how they would fight Fitz, you have to believe that Dempsey is a really good foil. And he got absolutley destroyed, i mean he wasn't in it. A one-sided thrashing. That doesn't translate all the way across, but I wonder, given how firmly Fitz out-boxed and out-generaled him with the added power gap...it doesn't add up particularly well for Ryan in my estimation.

Furthermore, I was reading this morning about West-Ryan 3 (you posted in that thread in fact). What success West had seemed to be in forcing an eager Ryan to lead and taking what he had to give and countering - sounds familiar? It should, because it surmises the way Fitz fought aggressive fighters rather nicely. What spelt several rounds of domiantion for West might spell a sharp end for Ryan versus Fitz. But Ryan was superb and you never know. Just that my money would be on Fitz.

Walker is no face-first brawler though

I certainly didn't mean to apply that he was that, just that he traded on pressure and violence. The style advantage is firmly with Fitz here, as well as the physical advantages.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:54 AM

I agree with trap-smith. Although I always think of Fitzsimmons as a tank.

Fairly static but looks to pick targets carefully with big punches, when being attacked keeps his cool and looks to slot one home, but can be overrun, if he does not get his shots off.

I like that too, based upon the HW run.

I could see Griffith out-working him though.

If he didn't get KO'd he'd have a chance at a decision, I think. When we have one fighter generally dominating aggression (Assuming Griffith doesn't want to work that much on the inside or mix it up) AND there's only one fighter winning by KO though, I know where my money is going.

PowerPuncher

03-13-2010, 06:54 AM

Tiger can't KO Fitz.

Any man can be ko'd, Tiger may well have been the best composite puncher and may have hit Fitz more than he'd ever been hit

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 06:57 AM

I like that too, based upon the HW run.

It is very difficult to guage his pre HW style IMO, I think he refined his skills at HW really and before was slightly raw.

If he didn't get KO'd he'd have a chance at a decision, I think. When we have one fighter generally dominating aggression (Assuming Griffith doesn't want to work that much on the inside or mix it up) AND there's only one fighter winning by KO though, I know where my money is going.

I think on the inside both men would'nt look to fight and keep it away from the inside, Griffith because he doesnt want to get in their, and Fitz because he does more damage at range.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:58 AM

Any man can be ko'd, Tiger may well have been the best composite puncher and may have hit Fitz more than he'd ever been hit

Fitz hit as hard as Foster in my estimation. Foster nearly killed Tiger. But then, this is a smaller version of Fitz who hadn't established himself as anything like the puncher he would become, so yeah, i'll accept your maybe. At the very least we agree that Tiger had an absolutley extraordinary chin.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 06:59 AM

...

McGrain

03-13-2010, 07:01 AM

It is very difficult to guage his pre HW style IMO, I think he refined his skills at HW really and before was slightly raw.

I disagree with this. My impression of Fitz is that if anything he re-gressed as a technical fighter but sharpened a specific set of tools that worked for him up at the higher weights to become an overall more refined specialised machine.

I think on the inside both men would'nt look to fight and keep it away from the inside, Griffith because he doesnt want to get in their, and Fitz because he does more damage at range.

Yeah, it's a really weird one this because Griffith might be the better in-fighter...really rare in this type of cross-era match up. Either way, I wouldn't bet on it. Anyway, here, he doesn't want to be inside, for sure.

bodhi

03-13-2010, 07:39 AM

Prime Ryan and that Dempsey are not one and the same, and they are rather different in my estimation anyway, but, in terms of how they would fight Fitz, you have to believe that Dempsey is a really good foil. And he got absolutley destroyed, i mean he wasn't in it. A one-sided thrashing. That doesn't translate all the way across, but I wonder, given how firmly Fitz out-boxed and out-generaled him with the added power gap...it doesn't add up particularly well for Ryan in my estimation.

Furthermore, I was reading this morning about West-Ryan 3 (you posted in that thread in fact). What success West had seemed to be in forcing an eager Ryan to lead and taking what he had to give and countering - sounds familiar? It should, because it surmises the way Fitz fought aggressive fighters rather nicely. What spelt several rounds of domiantion for West might spell a sharp end for Ryan versus Fitz. But Ryan was superb and you never know. Just that my money would be on Fitz.

You make some good points. I want to add that Ryan also beat Dempsey in three.

Fitz and Ryan fought an exhibition in the early 1890s. Do you have any newspaper reports or other reports on this. Could give us an indication how a real fight would unfold.

I certainly didn't mean to apply that he was that, just that he traded on pressure and violence. The style advantage is firmly with Fitz here, as well as the physical advantages.

Hm, Fitz was also beaten by pressure fighters and I think Walker wouldn't give him much room to work.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 07:45 AM

You make some good points. I want to add that Ryan also beat Dempsey in three.

Demspey was actually pissed. Literally.

Fitz and Ryan fought an exhibition in the early 1890s. Do you have any newspaper reports or other reports on this. Could give us an indication how a real fight would unfold.

No, I don't know it, but one thing that is interesting to me is that Ryan was instrumental in preparing Jeffries for Fitz, perhaps he had his number in some way? Although of course, Jeffries has an extra 70lbs to execute the strategy.

teeto

03-13-2010, 08:46 AM

Very interesting, i think Fitz has the ability to stop his man, but Tiger has the ability to win the fight ie the exchanges. It's not as if Fitz' right hand is not potent here because Foster did it with the left, Tiger's not that kind of fighter who is only susceptible to one shot in the main. Fitzimmons might stop him late whilst trailing on the cards. I think the ability that Tiger has to counter with the heavy artillery sees him do well here though.

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 08:49 AM

I disagree with this. My impression of Fitz is that if anything he re-gressed as a technical fighter but sharpened a specific set of tools that worked for him up at the higher weights to become an overall more refined specialised machine.

Really, I thought he was a much more physical fighter pre-HW days and relied more on his strength and physicality rather than his speed and technical ability.

Yeah, it's a really weird one this because Griffith might be the better in-fighter...really rare in this type of cross-era match up. Either way, I wouldn't bet on it. Anyway, here, he doesn't want to be inside, for sure.

It is weird because the better inside fighter (Griffith) actually wants to be in his opponents danger zone (Fitzs- on the outside). To win.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 08:57 AM

Really, I thought he was a much more physical fighter pre-HW days and relied more on his strength and physicality rather than his speed and technical ability.

Oh i don't doubt that this is true, I didn't mean to imply he was more physical at higher weights, the opposite in fact. Fitz wasn't big enough to fight these guys in the ways he learned coming up, becuase he was in consistantly with bigger men. Fighting at MW saw him enjoy certain advantages that became exclusively disadvantages when he moved up for the HW's. Fitz had to narrow his range. I'm sure that he became technically better than he was previously at the things he did, but in the same way Tyson was better technically than Liston - within a very narrow remit that he had to use to win fights due to physical limitations. Liston is a better technician because of his bigger breadth.

Similar conundrum with Fitz. He's just one big enigma, really.

It is weird because the better inside fighter (Griffith) actually wants to be in his opponents danger zone (Fitzs- on the outside). To win.

The whole match up is baffling, actually.

GPater11093

03-13-2010, 09:11 AM

Oh i don't doubt that this is true, I didn't mean to imply he was more physical at higher weights, the opposite in fact. Fitz wasn't big enough to fight these guys in the ways he learned coming up, becuase he was in consistantly with bigger men. Fighting at MW saw him enjoy certain advantages that became exclusively disadvantages when he moved up for the HW's. Fitz had to narrow his range. I'm sure that he became technically better than he was previously at the things he did, but in the same way Tyson was better technically than Liston - within a very narrow remit that he had to use to win fights due to physical limitations. Liston is a better technician because of his bigger breadth.

Similar conundrum with Fitz. He's just one big enigma, really.

Thing is in the Corbett fight he played a patient stalker and took his oppertunities when it comes. When he fights Jeffries he goes for him.

How the fuck you supposed to understand this guy?

The whole match up is baffling, actually.

It really is.

McGrain

03-13-2010, 09:13 AM

Plus, the period of time I mentioned is a point in his career where there is basically no film. Tough fighter to appraise. Shame CT is not about.

enquirer

03-15-2010, 07:48 AM

I think a peak 78-83 hagler could possibly outpoint fitz at 160. Once hagler tastes bobbys power he will know he has to box carefully with movemet angles,and his pumping jab. Hagler has the chin to take the odd shot that comes through,but marvin has to outbox fitz,he cant wait sit back and counter punch,because thats bobbys game,and if anyone can stop hagler at 160 its fitz.

Flea Man

03-15-2010, 08:15 AM

Pre-Corbett papers described him as a 'master of science' and a good mover; I'm given the impression that he made only slight adjustments with his feet to set up his startling counter shots.

Jim Hall, in their guaranteed no fix, slipped one punch to walk onto a short uppercut that laid him flat out. It was hard to escape Fitz. I also think his smaller gloves would help him damage Tigers tough chin.

Let's say 15 rounds, Fitz wears his gloves, Tiger wears his. Fitz doesn't appear (from reports) to be a guy that fouled or excessively clinched so I'm not sure that is too much of an issue here.

Fitz Decision

Flea Man

03-15-2010, 08:18 AM

mcvey

03-15-2010, 08:32 AM

As freakishly hard as Fitz hit, can Richard possibly win, being he was a hell of a hitter himself?

I think this has the potential to be another Tiger/ Foster.
Tiger was very strong and durable but not particulalry elusive ,and marching into Fitz ,unless you are Jeffries is not a good idea.
I go with Fitz and by ko, 9rds.

Flea Man

03-15-2010, 08:53 AM

I think PRIME Tiger will last with Fitz. Whilst I agree that Fitz's power is probably comparable to Fosters, Tiger was at the end of his career when he came to Foster if I'm not mistaken.

Although, as I previously said, Fitz's gloves may event hat out, making his punches as destructive as anything Tiger has seen. Just a thought.

enquirer

03-15-2010, 09:44 AM

Im sure fitzy will let hagler come in at 159 or so to accomodate the fight.
Those old timers arent like these new fangled boys who make welterweights or light heavies fight UNDER their normal weights in catchweight contests rather than over. But,to be true to the thread,how about robinson at 154? Or a few dark horses, hearns,ray leonard Or even the hawk?

Russell

03-15-2010, 09:49 AM

new fangled boys ?

Oh my fucking God. :lol::lol:

enquirer

03-15-2010, 10:02 AM

You like that russy?!

PowerPuncher

03-15-2010, 10:08 AM

Fitz hit as hard as Foster in my estimation. Foster nearly killed Tiger. But then, this is a smaller version of Fitz who hadn't established himself as anything like the puncher he would become, so yeah, i'll accept your maybe. At the very least we agree that Tiger had an absolutley extraordinary chin.

I was talking more of Tigers potential to KO Fitz

I'm not sure you can compare them as punchers, Tiger/Foster had to wear much bigger gloves which obviously take a huge edge off the tranfer of their power. Put some big pillows on Fitz and his power and 1punch kos would drop off big time. None punching boxers have killed men with a single shot in a street fight

Boilermaker

03-15-2010, 10:55 AM

I was talking more of Tigers potential to KO Fitz

I'm not sure you can compare them as punchers, Tiger/Foster had to wear much bigger gloves which obviously take a huge edge off the tranfer of their power. Put some big pillows on Fitz and his power and 1punch kos would drop off big time. None punching boxers have killed men with a single shot in a street fight

That is a good theory. Only problem is that Fitz often wore the pillows as you call them and it didnt seem to effect his astonishing one punch ko power in the slightest.

Brian123

03-23-2010, 01:11 AM

Fitz's power and speed (oh yeah and a granite chin) would just be to much for Tiger.

OLD FOGEY

03-23-2010, 01:35 AM

I like Fitz in this one. I think he both has a better chance of moving about and countering for a decision, or of scoring a knockout.

burt bienstock

03-23-2010, 12:35 PM

First of all, Bob Fitzimmons was a freak on nature...Weighing about 150-165 lbs at his prime,Fitz's weight was deceptive...He had massive shoulders and back muscles, of a 200 lb heavyweight , a large chest and tapering down to a thin waist, and long thin legs...Built like a top was old Fitz described...Fitzimmons at 160 lbs tackled heavyweights all the time, and had the power to ko most of them in his prime...People forget that Fitz was thirty six vwhen he first fought Jeffries in 1899..He gave young 220 lb Jeffries all he could handle ,until the 11th round...Six years before who knows,who would have won? I say Ruby Robert ko's boring in brave Dick Tiger in early rounds ala Bob Foster...What I have read of boxing writers of that time,I believe that only one middleweight would have a chance, to beat a prime Fitzimmons, and that would possibly be Harry Greb, because of his great foot speed...Greb was described as "never in the same spot for a second".hard to be timed solidly,windmill flurries, and out of range again...But there can never be a Bob Fitzimmons again... The mould was broken...

burt bienstock

03-23-2010, 12:48 PM

P.S. I have read that it is harder to ko a fighter with gloves than with thinskin gloves of early days..Gloves are more concussive,cover a wider area, and more likely to put a man to sleep..Bare knuckles and thinskin gloves are more cutting, and hurt more than tdays mitts...Maybe that ius why the oldtimers soaked their faces in brine constantly during their careers? Interesting subject though...