Fitzimmons v Foster

[McGrain]

The murderous punching Foster would put the theory to the test!

Who and why gents? It's at 175lbs, 15 rounds.

[Luigi1985]

At 175 lbs. I give Foster only a puncher´s chance, Fitz at this weight hit murderous, he would early KO Bob IMO...

[JohnThomas1]

Bob is a sure thing.

[janitor]

Fitz was the kind of fighter where if you had a weak chin you only had to blink and you were gone. Foster would have some sucess early but he would walk into a trap and then BOOM!

[Titan1]

Foster wins and lays Fitz out, probably by round five.

[masterorder19]

fitz by brutal ko r u kidding me

[unitas]

foster on points.

[robert ungurean]

Fitz-mid fight KO

[Duodenum]

Fitz, anytime he wants to. One shift, one solar plexus left up into Foster's spindly body, and let's go home.

[Stonehands89]

Fitzsimmons? A great boxer for his day and in his context. Yes, for his day and in his context. His hands were too low. His stance was all wrong for a fighter of Foster's caliber -Leaning back as a way to lure boxers in has happily not survived the natural evolution of style over the past century. Same with carrying hands low.

Combinations as we know them were rare then and Fitzsimmons would have had no answer for it. He hurled haymakers well against defensive specialists of the day like Corbett -who usually leaned back and away or ran away. But Foster would step inside of these and shoot shorter, faster, and better leveraged shots off his chin.

Foster would KO him early.

[Cleveland Slim]

The greatest middleweight against the greatest light-heavyweight. I have to go with Foster by decision.

[Bummy Davis]

These guys were both Frail looking Heavys but big shouldered Lightheavys with sick one punching power, Foster was the modern of the 2 but Fitz fought Corbett,Jeffires and split and Foster lost to every heavy he fought ......tough call or should I say anybodys fight

[rekcutnevets]

Nice pick JohnThomas1.

I have always given past fighters the benefit of the doubt when it comes to conditioning and technique. Conditioning would not have been as big of concern talking of a 70's fighter, but technique would. I think if Fitzsimmons was in the same time of fighting someone head to head, I think it is only fair to give him the same technical knowledge.

Fitz by ko. He could really bang for a small guy. He allegedly killed his pet lion, or knocked him out, or whatever.

[Boilermaker]

Fitzsimmons? A great boxer for his day and in his context. Yes, for his day and in his context. His hands were too low. His stance was all wrong for a fighter of Foster's caliber -Leaning back as a way to lure boxers in has happily not survived the natural evolution of style over the past century.


It seemed to work okay for Muhammed Ali, didnt it?



Same with carrying hands low.


But quite a lot of fighters still do carry their hands low nowadays. Usually after about 30 seconds of the round. And most boxers who through the lean back style, do carry low hands, because there head is hard to hit clean and they need to protect the body.

by the way, you do realise that, like all fighters, he did raise his guard when he was being attacked to the head, he didnt just stick his chin out and wait to be hit, dont you?


Combinations as we know them were rare then and Fitzsimmons would have had no answer for it. He hurled haymakers well against defensive specialists of the day like Corbett -who usually leaned back and away or ran away. But Foster would step inside of these and shoot shorter, faster, and better leveraged shots off his chin.



You dont think Corbett could combinationt punch? Or choynski or many of the others that Corbett fought. As big hitting as foster was at light heavy, he isnt going to hit any harder than Jeffries and Fitz took Jeffries punch more than a few times. This is a good fight, but Foster doesnt have the chin to stand up to Fitz' big shots.


Foster would KO him early.

No one kod a prime Fitz early. Foster does well to last the distance.

[JohnThomas1]

Fitzsimmons? A great boxer for his day and in his context. Yes, for his day and in his context. His hands were too low. His stance was all wrong for a fighter of Foster's caliber -Leaning back as a way to lure boxers in has happily not survived the natural evolution of style over the past century. Same with carrying hands low.

Combinations as we know them were rare then and Fitzsimmons would have had no answer for it. He hurled haymakers well against defensive specialists of the day like Corbett -who usually leaned back and away or ran away. But Foster would step inside of these and shoot shorter, faster, and better leveraged shots off his chin.

Foster would KO him early.

:happy

[JimmyShimmy]

You noobs,

Fitzsimmons was a boxing demi-god. One of the greatest greats whose craft in the ring was entirely unique and would prove effective in all eras.

Forget what you think you know about the Fighting Blacksmith and understand this guy absorbed the bombs from Choynski and Jeffries. He was tough, tough, tough. He could fight conserved ala Corbett and Gardner, or he could come out steaming like he did against most of his victims - Nonpareil, Hall, Sharkey, Maher, and Ruhlin.

Fitzsimmons had his hands low, leaned back - sure that's what his opponents thought, then they learned that his ability to move just out of the reach of blows and time his counters was superb.

With both hands Fitzsimmons was fond of looping haymakers or short pile-drivers. Either way you were gonna taste his hooks of doom. Fitz has too much experience, know-how, and toughness for a generic boxer in comparison in Foster.

Foster would jab, Fitz would catch his glove, Foster would step into what looks like and open target and get planted. Period. That is how the fight would go.

[Stonehands89]

It seemed to work okay for Muhammed Ali, didnt it?
Ali was a technical rebel who relied on athleticism that has never been seen before or since in the HW division. He is the exception that proves the norm.

Fitzsimmons had considerable power... but could not approach the physical genious that was Ali.

But quite a lot of fighters still do carry their hands low nowadays. Usually after about 30 seconds of the round. And most boxers who through the lean back style, do carry low hands, because there head is hard to hit clean and they need to protect the body.

by the way, you do realise that, like all fighters, he did raise his guard when he was being attacked to the head, he didnt just stick his chin out and wait to be hit, dont you?
Show me a trainer who teaches prospects to carry their hands low and I will show you a fool. "Keep your hands up" is the single most common exhortation that any trainer gives young boxers.

Leaning back is not encouraged either. It inhibits your ability to punch, it leaves you susceptible to the opponent's stepping in and punching.

Fitz raised his guard when being attacked to the head. Toddlers put their hands up when falling. You call that skill? I call it basic instinct.

I have yet to see a fighter operating before 1920 whose style was not comparatively simple. Some of this is attributable to the fact that boxing was really a different sport back then -longer rounds, smaller gloves, no standing 8, the wrestling factor, etc. but it is also attributable to the evolution of skill. Things progress. Expertise improves. Efficiency increases with time. If this were not true, we would all be in Model Ts, and worrying about polio.

You dont think Corbett could combinationt punch? Or choynski or many of the others that Corbett fought. As big hitting as foster was at light heavy, he isnt going to hit any harder than Jeffries and Fitz took Jeffries punch more than a few times. This is a good fight, but Foster doesnt have the chin to stand up to Fitz' big shots.
As a pioneer, we are all in debt to Corbett. But objectively speaking, I am as impressed with his skill as I am with his choice of trunks. And that ain't much.

Again, for his time, Corbett was a tactical wizard. He found that mobility helped him tame one-dimensional sluggers. Boxing advanced far beyond him. Anyone who argues that Corbett would defeat Joe Louis drinks too much but that does not mean that Louis is not in his debt. This is rational expectation, but it is not without exception.

No one kod a prime Fitz early. Foster does well to last the distance.
Ruby Bob was KOd inside of a few rounds 3 times. Foster punched faster and shorter than anyone he ever faced.

[Stonehands89]

You noobs,

Fitzsimmons was a boxing demi-god. One of the greatest greats whose craft in the ring was entirely unique and would prove effective in all eras.

Forget what you think you know about the Fighting Blacksmith and understand this guy absorbed the bombs from Choynski and Jeffries. He was tough, tough, tough. He could fight conserved ala Corbett and Gardner, or he could come out steaming like he did against most of his victims - Nonpareil, Hall, Sharkey, Maher, and Ruhlin.

Fitzsimmons had his hands low, leaned back - sure that's what his opponents thought, then they learned that his ability to move just out of the reach of blows and time his counters was superb.

With both hands Fitzsimmons was fond of looping haymakers or short pile-drivers. Either way you were gonna taste his hooks of doom. Fitz has too much experience, know-how, and toughness for a generic boxer in comparison in Foster.

Foster would jab, Fitz would catch his glove, Foster would step into what looks like and open target and get planted. Period. That is how the fight would go.

Jimmy, take a hardcopy of your avatar and place it horizontally on the floor. Meditate on it and accept it.

What's a noob?

[janitor]

[quote=Stonehands89]Ali was a technical rebel who relied on athleticism that has never been seen before or since in the HW division. He is the exception that proves the norm.


I think you will find that there have been quite a few technical rebels like that throughout history.

[Stonehands89]

I think you will find that there have been quite a few technical rebels like that throughout history.

... yes, but one cannot skirt the basics unless one has something in place that allows this. Usually that something is great athleticism. Superior reflexes allow for more risks to be taken but to argue that fighters should neglect tried-and-true technique is absurd.

[janitor]

... yes, but one cannot skirt the basics unless one has something in place that allows this. Usually that something is great athleticism. Superior reflexes allow for more risks to be taken but to argue that fighters should neglect tried-and-true technique is absurd.

Fighters like Ali who can fight with their hands at their side and not get hit are a bit of an anomaly but they do crop up from time to time. Examples include Dixie Kid, Jimmy Wilde and Jimmy Slatterey.

Boxing manuals at the turn of the century recomend a low guard so that the hand can be used to protect against punches to the head and body with equal rapidity. this makes sense since body punches were far more efective with the smaller gloves and therfore used more extensively.

Fighters like Jim Corbett, Dixie Kid and Jimmy Wilde were regarded as mavericks in their day but their critics had to acknowledge the results they got with their unorthodox stances.

[C. M. Clay II]

Bob is a sure thing.

:rofl

[JohnThomas1]

:rofl

:D

[JimmyShimmy]

Jimmy, take a hardcopy of your avatar and place it horizontally on the floor. Meditate on it and accept it.

I don't think so Mr. Poopy pants. You have just exposed your stance on this matter in your previous post.

You casually generalise and stereotype. If confronted on the real developments of pugilism through the 19th century your memory would prove as hazy and informal as the spammed books that fuelled you with this all too common train of thought in the first place.

I'm multi-dimensional in this region. I used to be thee most sceptical guy ever when it concerned the oldies, so I became thee most curious guy ever, trying to match-up the praise with the available material. The more you chip away at their legacy you see how much poop books and casual fans talk.

I know all about the lanky and dangerous Foster with his whipping hooks. The man was a killer. However, using my superior observational skills, I'd say I know an average of 80% more about Fitzsimmons style and ability than 90% of the guilty contributors. I edit that film, and understand that style.

I see an exciting fight. I see Foster getting countered into the ground. Toughness is at a big disparity here. Fitz had double grit and was awesome at figuring you out.

What's a noob?

Quite...

[Stonehands89]

Fighters like Ali who can fight with their hands at their side and not get hit are a bit of an anomaly but they do crop up from time to time. Examples include Dixie Kid, Jimmy Wilde and Jimmy Slatterey.

Boxing manuals at the turn of the century recomend a low guard so that the hand can be used to protect against punches to the head and body with equal rapidity. this makes sense since body punches were far more efective with the smaller gloves and therfore used more extensively.

Fighters like Jim Corbett, Dixie Kid and Jimmy Wilde were regarded as mavericks in their day but their critics had to acknowledge the results they got with their unorthodox stances.

As do I with modern mavericks like Pryor and Jones. Nevertheless... there is danger lurking there.

[Stonehands89]

I don't think so Mr. Poopy pants. You have just exposed your stance on this matter in your previous post.

You casually generalise and stereotype. If confronted on the real developments of pugilism through the 19th century your memory would prove as hazy and informal as the spammed books that fuelled you with this all too common train of thought in the first place.

I'm multi-dimensional in this region. I used to be thee most sceptical guy ever when it concerned the oldies, so I became thee most curious guy ever, trying to match-up the praise with the available material. The more you chip away at their legacy you see how much poop books and casual fans talk.

I know all about the lanky and dangerous Foster with his whipping hooks. The man was a killer. However, using my superior observational skills, I'd say I know an average of 80% more about Fitzsimmons style and ability than 90% of the guilty contributors. I edit that film, and understand that style.

I see an exciting fight. I see Foster getting countered into the ground. Toughness is at a big disparity here. Fitz had double grit and was awesome at figuring you out.

I am impervious to your verbalistics. Your attempts to undermine valid arguments with uninformed declarations about the speaker of the argument are easily parried.

You are guilty of reaching hasty conclusions about my objectivity and stance. Such languid condemnations would be stronger if you had a more representative sample of my views on the pugilists of the late 19th/early 20th century. You don't and you haven't bothered to ask.
Your open-mind and meticulous research habits amended your appreciation for Ruby Bob and that is fine... but you should extend that same fair-mindedness before drawing the kind of conclusion you have here. You haven't and now you force me to question whether this carelessness has made your analysis of Fitzsimmons impugnable.

To wit: your assertion that "Demigod" Bob was "the hardest puncher ever". This is less indicative of superior observational skills and more indicative of blind idolatry. Don't feel lonely. I have wrestled with same inclination about the great Poopy-pants himself.

For the record, I am of the view that these were pioneers and provided the foundation for the ring generalship that peaked in the 1940s and 50s. I see the strategy and have controlled for the differences between boxing then and boxing now. After fair-minded deliberation, I have arrived at the conclusion -albeit a subjective one, that the pioneers were pioneers. Their level of skill -efficient punching, combinations, countering, sound defense, angles, etc., had not developed to the levels that it would later...

And this is to be expected. Human endeavors improve with repetition and history builds upon itself.

Aside from the puncher's chance, I don't believe that Fitzsimmons would take Foster anymore than I believe that Roosevelt's Rough Riders would defeat Navy Seals.

[Mendoza]

Fitzsimmons would win easy, Ruby Bob took punches from heavyweights and was a genuie life taker.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]