Bob Fitzsimmons vs. Roberto Duran

[Russell]

The winner?

Could Fitz spark Duran the way Duran did?

[Loewe]

The winner?

Could Fitz spark Duran the way Duran did?

Not the same way but similar i suppose. Fitz would be just too big and would have too much power for Duran.

[Russell]

How many rounds do you feel it would go?

Would Duran have any chance, potentially?

[Loewe]

How many rounds do you feel it would go?

Would Duran have any chance, potentially?

Not more than five i suppose. And no i don´t think duran has any chance at all. He can´t KO Fitz before he KOs him and he also isn´t able to last the distance with him. Can´t see it.
Don´t get me wrong, Roberto is one of my favourite fighters but just too small to beat a so much bigger great like Fitz.

[guilalah]

Read Adam Pollock's (our apollack) Fitzsimmon's book for accounts of Fitzsimmons fighting guys his own size, and you'll see phrases like 'mowed him down', 'went down like he was shot', 'like a cannon ball had taken his head off', 'head rebounded near or fully a foot'. (I'm citing by memory, but I'm not paraphrasing by much). Fitzsimmons landing on middleweights was pretty much the boxing equivalent of an asteroid impact.
Consider also that Fitzsimmons could also take it from 160-180 Ilb guys like Choyinski and Maher, who were considered very hard punchers.
So I think Ruby Bob is too much for Duran to bite off.

[radianttwilight]

Under modern rules, I don't think it would be out of the question for Duran to outpoint Fitz...but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Russell]

Fitz started his career as a welterweight, correct?

[Robbi]

Duran would have Bob carried out on a stretcher.

[Mendoza]

The winner?

Could Fitz spark Duran the way Duran did?

Yes, Fitz could spark Duran like Hearns did.

[Russell]

Duran would have Bob carried out on a stretcher.

How would he manage that?

[Robbi]

How would he manage that?

With a machine gun and an axe.

[teeto]

You were right in your first post Robbi!

Scrap your secnd one though.

[teeto]

I was kidding there, no need to boycott the thread in disgust!!!!

[TommyV]

Fitzsimmons is just way too big and hits way too hard for Duran to have a chance. I reckon he has him out of there in 3 or 4.

[the cobra]

Huge size difference, it's not a fair match-up. A man who was at his best as a middleweight and over who began his career at welter against a man who was at his best at lightweight and began his career at bantam? Duran has no chance against Fitz. At the absolute most, I see it going 6 rounds.

[pugilist_boyd]

fitz was to great of a powerhitting marksmen who could starch heavys ,he would destroy the game duran within 5 rnds

[JohnThomas1]

Duran UD

[BIG DEE]

BIG DEE HERE= Fitzsimmons KOs Duran early and brutally. Fitzsimmons fought
the guys he fought and KOed like Tom Sharkey, Jim Corbett, Gus Rulin and
Jim Jeffries. Somebody thinks he would be afraid of Duran needs their thought
processes rearranged. Fitzsimmons would laugh at Duran before he knocked him the f**k out.

[mcvey]

Fitzsimmons is just way too big and hits way too hard for Duran to have a chance. I reckon he has him out of there in 3 or 4.
Fitz was around the same size as Iran Barkley with more power,Duran well past his best squeaked by Barkley,still I go for Fitz.

[McGrain]

KO1. Duran is to aggressive to last more than 3 minutes with Fitz.

[Stonehands89]

Duran UD
Here you are all alone. Well, you got a friend in me.

A qualifier. The Freckled Wonder would beat Duran under the rules of 1890. It was a different sport then requiring different skills and assets. But put that Fitz is a time machine and transport him to February 1989 for a 15 rounder against a modern technician? Ruby would rue the day.

I don't like what I see in the film from that period. Never have. I don't like their balance, their tendency to jump back and jump in, their leaning back, their extended arms, etc. In sum, these are pioneers. Corbett looks funny on film. I think that by today standards, he sucks. Then again, perhaps I am merely transposing my disdain for that racist jerk. In sum, they wouldn't do well against modern greats in the modern incarnation of boxing. And there are few, very few, exceptions. Gans looks good. Langford looks damn good.

In my opinion, Bob Fitzsimmons has become more Paul Bunyon than a flesh and blood boxer. He is an ATG great, but the belief that he would have cut a swathe among modern MW or LHW greats strikes me as folklore. Tall tales.

[JohnThomas1]

Here you are all alone. Well, you got a friend in me.

A qualifier. The Freckled Wonder would beat Duran under the rules of 1890. It was a different sport then requiring different skills and assets. But put that Fitz is a time machine and transport him to February 1989 for a 15 rounder against a modern technician? Ruby would rue the day.

I don't like what I see in the film from that period. Never have. I don't like their balance, their tendency to jump back and jump in, their leaning back, their extended arms, etc. In sum, these are pioneers. Corbett looks funny on film. I think that by today standards, he sucks. Then again, perhaps I am merely transposing my disdain for that racist jerk. In sum, they wouldn't do well against modern greats in the modern incarnation of boxing. And there are few, very few, exceptions. Gans looks good. Langford looks damn good.

In my opinion, Bob Fitzsimmons has become more Paul Bunyon than a flesh and blood boxer. He is an ATG great, but the belief that he would have cut a swathe among modern MW or LHW greats strikes me as folklore. Tall tales.

Well i knew you were coming. Good thing too.

This IMO is a HOF post and i am 100% ++++++ in agreeance.

Kudo's

[Ted Spoon]

Here you are all alone. Well, you got a friend in me.

A qualifier. The Freckled Wonder would beat Duran under the rules of 1890. It was a different sport then requiring different skills and assets. But put that Fitz is a time machine and transport him to February 1989 for a 15 rounder against a modern technician? Ruby would rue the day.

I don't like what I see in the film from that period. Never have. I don't like their balance, their tendency to jump back and jump in, their leaning back, their extended arms, etc. In sum, these are pioneers. Corbett looks funny on film. I think that by today standards, he sucks. Then again, perhaps I am merely transposing my disdain for that racist jerk. In sum, they wouldn't do well against modern greats in the modern incarnation of boxing. And there are few, very few, exceptions. Gans looks good. Langford looks damn good.

In my opinion, Bob Fitzsimmons has become more Paul Bunyon than a flesh and blood boxer. He is an ATG great, but the belief that he would have cut a swathe among modern MW or LHW greats strikes me as folklore. Tall tales.
It's like anything though.

Kids are more magnetized towards street dancing than classics like the Waltz or the Tango; does not mean they are any less difficult, impressive or technically proficient. Alas, if you had been born in the era you would possess a greater understanding of the ability of the men.

Secondly, what have you really seen of these guys to amass a fair judgement?

Timing and experience have a habit of uprooting that slicker looking exterior. Fitz is the kinda guy who could be pivoted into a bit of a muddle, but in the end, he'd bring the walls down with something timed to the T.

Theoretically, if Bob did tackle Duran, he'd be the attacker he was against Maher/Sharkey and hunt down the smaller man. On paper, it's not pretty.

Fitz's balance and understanding of weight distribution is well noted. No amount of him looking sketchy against Corbett under the poor guidance of the earlier kinetoscope, in a fight he was losing (not a good judge of stylistic ability); until he landed the big one should sway a well-read opinion.

Not an attack, but what do you think?

[Sweet Pea]

Duran UDI'll personally take Duran by stoppage under modern rules, at his best anyway.

What weight would this be fought at?

[Stonehands89]

It's like anything though.

Kids are more magnetized towards street dancing than classics like the Waltz or the Tango; does not mean they are any less difficult, impressive or technically proficient. Alas, if you had been born in the era you would possess a greater understanding of the ability of the men.
Secondly, what have you really seen of these guys to amass a fair judgement?


Neither you nor I are entranced by close-ups and color. In fact, I have commented at length on the disadvantages that old-timers' film have in making comparisons with modern fight films. Hell today we can hear a fighter exhale on film and practically taste the splattered blood. Kids can't differentiate between style and substance. We're not kids here. I don't even like action films, prefering instead film noir, with its character development, deliberate pace, and moody scenes.

I've seen every scrap of film that I got my hands on over the past 20 years, and its enough for me to draw a rough line separating the primitive from the modern. I estimate that boxers became more technically proficient by modern standards right around the time that the sport itself evolved into its modern incarnation: the 1920s. The rounds were limited, the rules were changing, etc... boxers began to fight differently, no longer having to prepare for 20 or 45 round endurance contests.

I have reserved my criticism to instances where a pioneers are given the benefit of the doubt in H2Hs over modern technicians, keeping in mind that they were essentially involved in a different sport and it is unfair to expect them to adjust to 15 rounds against modern, more evolved fighters who have the advantage of 30 or 50 years of scientific evolution on their side.

Timing and experience have a habit of uprooting that slicker looking exterior. Fitz is the kinda guy who could be pivoted into a bit of a muddle, but in the end, he'd bring the walls down with something timed to the T.
See, you may be falling into the general problem that I see the pioneers' ESB base regularly fall into and the same one that many at the general forum accuse us all of: automatically deferring to the black and white (or in this case, the dust and the cobwebs).

"Timing and experience"? Against whom? Who has Fitz ever faced that was anywhere near as technically efficient and streamlined as Duran?

"Slicker looking exterior"? I'm not one to tout the stylists. I find Jones to lack substance inside and outside. I'm talking about the modern technicians -Duran for instance. In his head was about 150 years of boxing experience from Brown and Arcel. It was about as slick as a concussion. It's efficiency and more importantly for this discussion, it is an evolved marvel that we see in fighters like that.

My argument boils down to this: The Model T commands respect, but let's not expect it to compete with a Lambourgini.

[janitor]

Fitz was around the same size as Iran Barkley with more power,Duran well past his best squeaked by Barkley,still I go for Fitz.

If you ever mention Fitzsimmons and Barkley in the same sentence again I will cyber bitch slap you.

[TommyV]

If you ever mention Fitzsimmons and Barkley in the same sentence again I will cyber bitch slap you.

:lol:

[Russell]

If you ever mention Fitzsimmons and Barkley in the same sentence again I will cyber bitch slap you.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Stonehands89]

If you ever mention Fitzsimmons and Barkley in the same sentence again I will cyber bitch slap you.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Holmes' Jab]

Fitz would stop Duran in his tracks in the early rounds.

[dwilson]

Fitz would destroy him.

[mcvey]

If you ever mention Fitzsimmons and Barkley in the same sentence again I will cyber bitch slap you.
Please accept my most humble apologies J,I don't know what I was thinking of.

[Ted Spoon]

[/font]
Neither you nor I are entranced by close-ups and color. In fact, I have commented at length on the disadvantages that old-timers' film have in making comparisons with modern fight films. Hell today we can hear a fighter exhale on film and practically taste the splattered blood. Kids can't differentiate between style and substance. We're not kids here. I don't even like action films, prefering instead film noir, with its character development, deliberate pace, and moody scenes.

I've seen every scrap of film that I got my hands on over the past 20 years, and its enough for me to draw a rough line separating the primitive from the modern. I estimate that boxers became more technically proficient by modern standards right around the time that the sport itself evolved into its modern incarnation: the 1920s. The rounds were limited, the rules were changing, etc... boxers began to fight differently, no longer having to prepare for 20 or 45 round endurance contests.

I have reserved my criticism to instances where a pioneers are given the benefit of the doubt in H2Hs over modern technicians, keeping in mind that they were essentially involved in a different sport and it is unfair to expect them to adjust to 15 rounds against modern, more evolved fighters who have the advantage of 30 or 50 years of scientific evolution on their side.


See, you may be falling into the general problem that I see the pioneers' ESB base regularly fall into and the same one that many at the general forum accuse us all of: automatically deferring to the black and white (or in this case, the dust and the cobwebs).

"Timing and experience"? Against whom? Who has Fitz ever faced that was anywhere near as technically efficient and streamlined as Duran?

"Slicker looking exterior"? I'm not one to tout the stylists. I find Jones to lack substance inside and outside. I'm talking about the modern technicians -Duran for instance. In his head was about 150 years of boxing experience from Brown and Arcel. It was about as slick as a concussion. It's efficiency and more importantly for this discussion, it is an evolved marvel that we see in fighters like that.

My argument boils down to this: The Model T commands respect, but let's not expect it to compete with a Lambourgini.

Whether kids or hardened fans, the impact of the more 'tangible' film will leave its impression. If the material is there then it's ours to absorb and subconsciously analyze; this is why Robinson is boxing's P4P bookmark.

With the film, we gain the power to elucidate our previous assumptions with the material as our tool; Ala 'There is no knowledge that is not power'.

In boxing, 'knowledge' is often incriminating to our older generals as we begin to naturally perceive what we know.

When the lesser film greets a sculpted mind-set it's those very guidelines, used to differentiate the gradient of an evolved art form, which can confuse stylistic changes with good ol' plain effectiveness.

There are thousands upon thousands of picture-painting analogies that better help us understand a theory of evolution in the ring whether it is Lions or Model-T's. Other sports are far easier to call, with boxing, the more you try to encapsulate it the more you will be lead down its alternating branches.

There is no defining hook on which you can rest your Loral’s. Perception is at an imbalance with the available material. This is not a point to strengthen Ted Spoons any more than it is to weaken your own.

As to the intangible 'truth', it will always lay dormant to our knowing, but 'closer to the truth' is in the works. The older form of boxing is not as left in the smoke as many believe. In fact, the more you find out, the more you can relate. John L. Sullivan being able to strike with great speed is beginning to work its way into our jargon - to many books, therein lies the portrait of a barbaric drunkard with some charisma.

With layer after layer getting peeled off, things are becoming clearer or at least fairer. Ted Spoon is to make sense of all of this.

-'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey was Fitzsimmons' most technically efficient foe, a man who was praised to high heaven in his time for his great ability.

[natonic]

I find it very difficult to evaluate fighters of the pre 1920's due to poor film and lack of film and the extreme style differences. Like someone else said, one guy who did impress me was Langford. I can't presume to make a judgement, but I'm not saying others don't have the knowledge to make that judgement, I just think it should be backed up with a sunstantial analysis.
One thing I'll say though is that the Middleweight Duran never seemed to have his "solar plexus" in the best shape.

[Stonehands89]

One thing I'll say though is that the Middleweight Duran never seemed to have his "solar plexus" in the best shape.
That's what Dundee beleived before Leonard I and he was really wrong. Watch Duran-Barkley. Barkley was throwing monster shots repeatedly downstairs and Duran responded as if it were less than an itch.

If Ruby gets in close to Duran with his hands down as he frequently does on the film and tried to throw his vaunted body shot, he will be countered like he never had before by anyone.

[Stonehands89]

Whether kids or hardened fans, the impact of the more 'tangible' film will leave its impression. If the material is there then it's ours to absorb and subconsciously analyze; this is why Robinson is boxing's P4P bookmark.
That is not why Robinson is the p4p bookmark. You discount resume, longevity, dominance, ability to compete past his prime and against larger men, etc. It isn't just visual analysis that confirm his royalty --We do not have much film of the WW Robinson and yet he is still widely touted as the best WW in history.

With the film, we gain the power to elucidate our previous assumptions with the material as our tool; Ala 'There is no knowledge that is not power'.

In boxing, 'knowledge' is often incriminating to our older generals as we begin to naturally perceive what we know.

When the lesser film greets a sculpted mind-set it's those very guidelines, used to differentiate the gradient of an evolved art form, which can confuse stylistic changes with good ol' plain effectiveness.

There are thousands upon thousands of picture-painting analogies that better help us understand a theory of evolution in the ring whether it is Lions or Model-T's. Other sports are far easier to call, with boxing, the more you try to encapsulate it the more you will be lead down its alternating branches.

There is no defining hook on which you can rest your Loral’s. Perception is at an imbalance with the available material. This is not a point to strengthen Ted Spoons any more than it is to weaken your own.

As to the intangible 'truth', it will always lay dormant to our knowing, but 'closer to the truth' is in the works. The older form of boxing is not as left in the smoke as many believe. In fact, the more you find out, the more you can relate. John L. Sullivan being able to strike with great speed is beginning to work its way into our jargon - to many books, therein lies the portrait of a barbaric drunkard with some charisma.

With layer after layer getting peeled off, things are becoming clearer or at least fairer. Ted Spoon is to make sense of all of this.

-'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey was Fitzsimmons' most technically efficient foe, a man who was praised to high heaven in his time for his great ability.
Like me, your verbosity at times grows wings and launches up and away, but I think that I can catch hold and politely bring it down to the pavement. Someday I may require the same service from you.

Your argument is essentially this: we are naturally influenced by our own preconceptions and are prone to defer to things familiar as opposed to things unfamiliar. Therefore, it isn't necessarily true that the pioneers' pugilistic style was any less effective than modern technique.

This may be true. However, it is less true for the objective mind; for those who respect history and context. I have no doubt that boxers at the turn of the 20th century used techniques that were appropriate for that time and within the rules of that incarnation of the sport. Men are problem-solvers and when you toss a man into conditions of exigency, like the ring, he will adapt. The pioneers we remember were the best at the trade as it was then.

However, men are also progressive. Science is progressive, not stagnant. The 20th century was outstanding among every previous century in recorded history in this regard, though not always for the betterment of humanity as Hitler and Stalin demonstrated to the dismay of all that is good and just. They proved that given scientific advancements since the time of Vlad Dracula and Ivan the Terrrible, humanity's capability for destructive impulses could be indulged with truly devestating results. Their objective could also be reached efficiently, and efficiency is always a goal of science, be it medical or economic, or pugilistic.

Skills evolve over time. They become more efficient over time. Beginning around 1920 the rules of the sport changed, the sport became more organized, and the skills adapted, conforming closer to what it is today.

By arguing that a pioneer can defeat a modern counterpart, you have to make two assumptions. The first is that their level of skills are enough as they were, and the logical expectation of evolution/development are not at play. That's a stretch. The second assumption is what kills it: That a boxer from 1900 would somehow cope with far different equipment, rules, and expectations that the boxer today is conditioned to.

I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini. The Model T deserves it's place in museums and the Lambourgini owes it's existence to those first horseless carriages. The man who invented fuel-injection is an inventor. The man who invented the wheel is a genius.

To be sure, I myself often used the Fitzsimmon's shift in the ring. Ironically enough, I saw Duran do it many times and don't remember anyone else doing it although I've heard that Marciano would do it too. It's a beautiful move and it works like hell. So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten.

[dpw417]

Whether kids or hardened fans, the impact of the more 'tangible' film will leave its impression. If the material is there then it's ours to absorb and subconsciously analyze; this is why Robinson is boxing's P4P bookmark.
With the film, we gain the power to elucidate our previous assumptions with the material as our tool; Ala 'There is no knowledge that is not power'.

In boxing, 'knowledge' is often incriminating to our older generals as we begin to naturally perceive what we know.

When the lesser film greets a sculpted mind-set it's those very guidelines, used to differentiate the gradient of an evolved art form, which can confuse stylistic changes with good ol' plain effectiveness.

There are thousands upon thousands of picture-painting analogies that better help us understand a theory of evolution in the ring whether it is Lions or Model-T's. Other sports are far easier to call, with boxing, the more you try to encapsulate it the more you will be lead down its alternating branches.

There is no defining hook on which you can rest your Loral’s. Perception is at an imbalance with the available material. This is not a point to strengthen Ted Spoons any more than it is to weaken your own.

As to the intangible 'truth', it will always lay dormant to our knowing, but 'closer to the truth' is in the works. The older form of boxing is not as left in the smoke as many believe. In fact, the more you find out, the more you can relate. John L. Sullivan being able to strike with great speed is beginning to work its way into our jargon - to many books, therein lies the portrait of a barbaric drunkard with some charisma.

With layer after layer getting peeled off, things are becoming clearer or at least fairer. Ted Spoon is to make sense of all of this.

-'Nonpareil' Jack Dempsey was Fitzsimmons' most technically efficient foe, a man who was praised to high heaven in his time for his great ability.
Ted Spoon, I need reiterate what Stonehands stated a few posts back. The most telling part of Robinson's status as the P4P fighter versus the likes of Leonard, Greb, Wilde etc. IMO is the fact Robinson was able to compete at a level where he was defeating world champions while being past his best. No champion before or since has accomplished this for the duration of 25 years. Robinson's record speaks for itself...and the film backs up the record.
Now to the match-up...Fitzsimmons versus Duran at middleweight.
Bob Fitzsimmons seems to me to be the cornerstone for professional boxing in regards to offensive, powerpunching. Was Fitzsimmons one of...if not the first originator of using your full body weight to maximize the destructiveness of your blows? Jack Dempsey certainly regarded Fitz as one of the 'old masters'.

"Exploding body weight is the most important weapon in fist fighting or in boxing. Never forget that! I was at my peak as a fighter the day I met Willard under the broiling Toledo sun. My body weight was moving like lightning, and I was exploding that weight terrifically against teh giant. Even before the first round was finished, Willard looked like the victim of a premature mine blast." - Jack Dempsey

Fitz was also highly regarded as an innovator, by the 'old master' Joe Gans. Is there something to the methods of the pioneers like Fitzsimmons? The reports of the body counts of Fitz' opponents say so...What would Fitz present to Duran from a stylistic point? It looks on film that Fitz stands erect, somewhat squared, with hands at a lower position, with weight on the back foot. Before poking holes in Fitz's stance, take into account how boxing was conducted back in the day...The fights were scheduled for very long durations, if you aren't experienced in trying to hold your hands up for 3-5 minutes, Go ahead and try it, it can get tough... now try holding your hands high for 20 or so rounds. No wonder they held their hands lower, it was a necessity. Also as fights wore on and on, the small horse hair gloves became heavier and heavier. One thing to consider Fitz was considered an absolute monsterous puncher in his day...How about with modern gloves? He would unquestionably be able to hit even harder, because of increased padding in the gloves...His hands would be more protected. Interesting thought?
Ted Spoon, you would know this more than I would, did Fitz initiate and find his range by using the left jab? From the films it does not appear so...I would think Fitz dominated in his day due to a better command of his center line in offense and defense...He tore them up from the inside out.
With Fitz's erect leaning back style, I'd imagine Duran to use feints and attempt to work angles. While Fitz is regarded as a cunning, strategist and very quick to capitalize on mistakes, or force an opponent into making them. Duran would be a complex proposition that Fitz would never have witnessed before... It's easy to say Duran would use feints and angles...how do you express it? Duran was a boxing encyclopedia, there were literally many ways to get close, fire off jabs to score or find range for the right,pivot to the side with left hooks to the body and head, Ray Leonard has stated on a HBO broadcast, that he feinted even with his hair!
Duran's pivots could possibly offset Fitz's straight line stepping and power delivery...Stylistically Duran has (evolved?) the advantage of being more mobile, being able to counter by getting under or to the side of attacks...There would be a complexity to his style, that Fitz would never have had the opportunity to see before...Fitz would problably deduce that his best chance lies in straight line body punching, hiding Duran's head very elusive...Duran would have his opportunities to counter Fitz as he attempted to go downstairs...How does Duran react to Fitz's power? How does Fitz react to fast, rapid fire combinations on the inside while he gets set?
I feel Duran wins a decision...
A rematch though?
Fitz might solve Duran, something tells me he would be a very fast learner to the modern game.

[Ted Spoon]

That is not why Robinson is the p4p bookmark. You discount resume, longevity, dominance, ability to compete past his prime and against larger men, etc. It isn't just visual analysis that confirm his royalty --We do not have much film of the WW Robinson and yet he is still widely touted as the best WW in history.

And with that could you objectively say that Harry Greb, for instance, is as well documented?

Like me, your verbosity at times grows wings and launches up and away, but I think that I can catch hold and politely bring it down to the pavement. Someday I may require the same service from you.

Your argument is essentially this: we are naturally influenced by our own preconceptions and are prone to defer to things familiar as opposed to things unfamiliar. Therefore, it isn't necessarily true that the pioneers' pugilistic style was any less effective than modern technique.

The point in mind was rather simple, but Ted Spoon did not attempt to weave a web around you with waffle.

It was not so much about our preconceptions of the eras as it was about the older style of boxing, which relates far more to the more modern breed boxing than any one fan is aware of.

However, men are also progressive. Science is progressive, not stagnant. The 20th century was outstanding among every previous century in recorded history in this regard, though not always for the betterment of humanity as Hitler and Stalin demonstrated to the dismay of all that is good and just. They proved that given scientific advancements since the time of Vlad Dracula and Ivan the Terrrible, humanity's capability for destructive impulses could be indulged with truly devestating results. Their objective could also be reached efficiently, and efficiency is always a goal of science, be it medical or economic, or pugilistic.

Science is, generally, a stable evolution. Boxing is forever an unsolved equation.

Science makes sense; boxing has a habit of making none at all. There are freak exceptions where the man with the sword defeats the man with the machine gun - an outcome that would never occur in the battle field.

And...

"So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten."

You've written the point here.

Bob Fitzsimmons was not so much a pioneer as he was a total exception.

[Ted Spoon]

Ted Spoon, I need reiterate what Stonehands stated a few posts back. The most telling part of Robinson's status as the P4P fighter versus the likes of Leonard, Greb, Wilde etc. IMO is the fact Robinson was able to compete at a level where he was defeating world champions while being past his best. No champion before or since has accomplished this for the duration of 25 years. Robinson's record speaks for itself...and the film backs up the record.

The film shall do its job to keep Robinsons stellar legacy alive, but Fitzsimmons, Langford and Greb all fought on past their best while taking the best scalps around.

Greb was possibly past his best for the first Tunney fight...

Fitz was also highly regarded as an innovator, by the 'old master' Joe Gans. Is there something to the methods of the pioneers like Fitzsimmons? The reports of the body counts of Fitz' opponents say so...What would Fitz present to Duran from a stylistic point? It looks on film that Fitz stands erect, somewhat squared, with hands at a lower position, with weight on the back foot. Before poking holes in Fitz's stance, take into account how boxing was conducted back in the day...The fights were scheduled for very long durations, if you aren't experienced in trying to hold your hands up for 3-5 minutes, Go ahead and try it, it can get tough... now try holding your hands high for 20 or so rounds. No wonder they held their hands lower, it was a necessity. Also as fights wore on and on, the small horse hair gloves became heavier and heavier. One thing to consider Fitz was considered an absolute monsterous puncher in his day...How about with modern gloves? He would unquestionably be able to hit even harder, because of increased padding in the gloves...His hands would be more protected. Interesting thought?

Now herein lies the pivotal point on Fitzsimmons:

All we have on Fitz is of him getting out boxed by Corbett looking a bit funky and static with his low hands, a stark contrast to the energized hunter of the 'Nonpareil' Dempsey', Jim Hall, Dan Creedon and Peter Maher fights.

Duran would not cause Fitzsimmons to take a back seat while hoping to land the big one, but be all over him with his trademark right and left hooks.

Duran would not be able to skirt around Fitz like the Ali-like Corbett was. He would have to get involved, rely on circling and pot-shots, but it'd be very dangerous.

[Stonehands89]

And with that could you objectively say that Harry Greb, for instance, is as well documented?
Greb is my top 3 and there is next to no film of him that is presently known. He is also very often touted by others who argue, sans any film like WW Robinson, that he is top 3 or 5.

The point in mind was rather simple, but Ted Spoon did not attempt to weave a web around you with waffle.

It was not so much about our preconceptions of the eras as it was about the older style of boxing, which relates far more to the more modern breed boxing than any one fan is aware of.
Alas, I would say that neither does it relate to modernity as far as some ESB posters would have us believe...

Science is, generally, a stable evolution. Boxing is forever an unsolved equation.

Science makes sense; boxing has a habit of making none at all. There are freak exceptions where the man with the sword defeats the man with the machine gun - an outcome that would never occur in the battle field.
Boxing is dynamic, not static, but that does not exactly promote the believe that success in the ring is a downright mystery. If you consider probability you can make some judgments about who would win and why... Teddy Atlas does it often, and even within a fight, analysts can see what is about to happen before a layperson. Of course, it is the theatre of the unexpected -when punches are flying near nerve centers there are always surprises...

There are many downright shocking defeats on battlefields across teh globe, Ted Spoon. Boudica's forces were, according to Tacitus, 100,000 strong. Dio Cassius claims that she had upwards of 230,000. The Roman general Paulinus had about 10,000, or so it is claimed. Either way, he was woefully outnumbered and yet destroyed Bouidica. Why? He chose the ground. More developed tactics. Efficiency. Experience. Professionalism. It all sounds familiar, yes?

And...

"So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten."

You've written the point here.

Bob Fitzsimmons was not so much a pioneer as he was a total exception.
Stonehands says that Bob Fitzsimmons was both a pioneer and exceptional -for his time. I am sure that if he were transported here via time machine, Ruby would not prove so exceptional in the modern era. Too many Paulinuses.

[dpw417]

The film shall do its job to keep Robinsons stellar legacy alive, but Fitzsimmons, Langford and Greb all fought on past their best while taking the best scalps around.

Greb was possibly past his best for the first Tunney fight...



Now herein lies the pivotal point on Fitzsimmons:

All we have on Fitz is of him getting out boxed by Corbett looking a bit funky and static with his low hands, a stark contrast to the energized hunter of the 'Nonpareil' Dempsey', Jim Hall, Dan Creedon and Peter Maher fights.

Duran would not cause Fitzsimmons to take a back seat while hoping to land the big one, but be all over him with his trademark right and left hooks.

Duran would not be able to skirt around Fitz like the Ali-like Corbett was. He would have to get involved, rely on circling and pot-shots, but it'd be very dangerous.
Ted Spoon - When assessing this fight I can honestly only evaluate from what I'm seen...Even given Fitzsimmons' past his best on the avaliable film...(Was he past his best v Cobett?)
It is feasible that Fitz would be very aggressive and press the action hard...but when doing that in the ring, openings for the opponent, especially of Duran's caliber would be painfully exploited. Duran thrived against aggressive fighters, by drawing leads either lefts or rights, bobbing under and countering with hard rights. In fact, when Duran's opponents pressed, Duran did not have to work as hard to land his blows.
One does not need to move like an Ali, Corbett, or Ray Leonard to effectively create distance against an ultra aggressive foe. Distance can be gained by subtle shifts, movement from the head and waist, a nudge to help an onrushing past you, economical footwork pivoting to the side...Benny Leonard did all of this...Duran knows those tricks as well.
A question...could Fitzsimmons press an attack with the weight on the front leg like the heavyweight Jack Dempsey? I think one would need to be a proponent of the bob and weave style, to effectively press the action like you suggest Fitzsimmons would employ against Duran. Did Fitzsimmons possess that attribute? He stands very erect while fighting (from what I've seen) Fitzsimmons weight shifting from the backfoot creates impressive leverage for powerful blows for sure. It is a pure form of bodyweight punching. But Duran is not a stationary opponent by any means...While Fitz gets set, Duran pivots and fires...then moves. Duran was very fluid at this and against some very fast opponents. Who among Fitzsimmons' opponents would be a comparable stylistic analogy to Duran?
If Fitz is capable of the footwork required to close the distance and fire off punches from his loaded trigger stance...Wouldn't the energy expediture be enormous?

[OLD FOGEY]

That is not why Robinson is the p4p bookmark. You discount resume, longevity, dominance, ability to compete past his prime and against larger men, etc. It isn't just visual analysis that confirm his royalty --We do not have much film of the WW Robinson and yet he is still widely touted as the best WW in history.[font=Verdana][size=2]


Like me, your verbosity at times grows wings and launches up and away, but I think that I can catch hold and politely bring it down to the pavement. Someday I may require the same service from you.

Your argument is essentially this: we are naturally influenced by our own preconceptions and are prone to defer to things familiar as opposed to things unfamiliar. Therefore, it isn't necessarily true that the pioneers' pugilistic style was any less effective than modern technique.

This may be true. However, it is less true for the objective mind; for those who respect history and context. I have no doubt that boxers at the turn of the 20th century used techniques that were appropriate for that time and within the rules of that incarnation of the sport. Men are problem-solvers and when you toss a man into conditions of exigency, like the ring, he will adapt. The pioneers we remember were the best at the trade as it was then.

However, men are also progressive. Science is progressive, not stagnant. The 20th century was outstanding among every previous century in recorded history in this regard, though not always for the betterment of humanity as Hitler and Stalin demonstrated to the dismay of all that is good and just. They proved that given scientific advancements since the time of Vlad Dracula and Ivan the Terrrible, humanity's capability for destructive impulses could be indulged with truly devestating results. Their objective could also be reached efficiently, and efficiency is always a goal of science, be it medical or economic, or pugilistic.

Skills evolve over time. They become more efficient over time. Beginning around 1920 the rules of the sport changed, the sport became more organized, and the skills adapted, conforming closer to what it is today.

By arguing that a pioneer can defeat a modern counterpart, you have to make two assumptions. The first is that their level of skills are enough as they were, and the logical expectation of evolution/development are not at play. That's a stretch. The second assumption is what kills it: That a boxer from 1900 would somehow cope with far different equipment, rules, and expectations that the boxer today is conditioned to.

I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini. The Model T deserves it's place in museums and the Lambourgini owes it's existence to those first horseless carriages. The man who invented fuel-injection is an inventor. The man who invented the wheel is a genius.

To be sure, I myself often used the Fitzsimmon's shift in the ring. Ironically enough, I saw Duran do it many times and don't remember anyone else doing it although I've heard that Marciano would do it too. It's a beautiful move and it works like hell. So, yes indeed, there is much to learn from the pioneers and there are skills -from even as recently as the 50s- that have been forgotten.

"I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini."

But a comparision to technology is worse than useless concerning a physical activity such as boxing. Boxing isn't anything like building automobiles or airplanes.

I think a better analogy would be juggling--a very difficult physical activity which like boxing takes years of practice and training to master. There are films of old-time jugglers on youtube. Check out Enrico Rastelli. He bounces a ball off his head while skipping rope, bounces two balls off his head at one time, juggles six plates in his hands while spinning a hoop on his left foot and skipping rope while standing on one leg, etc.
My point is this level of physical coordination and skill is so great that it is virtually impossible for a more modern juggler to be "better". The most they can do is equal this or that feat.

Getting back to Fitz and Duran, I think Fitz would just be too big for Duran to dominate and the "culture shock" of fighting someone removed a century in time might effect Duran as much as Fitz. The difference is that Fitz could be made to look silly here and there and survive. I don't see Duran having the firepower to stop him. If Duran is caught off guard by a Fitz trick long out of use, he gets stretched. I take Fitz by a knockout.

[META5]

To be sure, I myself often used the Fitzsimmon's shift in the ring. Ironically enough, I saw Duran do it many times and don't remember anyone else doing it although I've heard that Marciano would do it too. It's a beautiful move and it works like hell.

Flash Elorde, James Toney, Floyd Mayweather Jnr are fighters that come to mind as having used the technique.

[Brian123]

The power in Fitzsimmons hands would just be too much-KO RD 4!

[Quickhands21]

duran

[Seamus]

Iran Barkley would take Fitz's head off his shoulders and Duran spanked Barkley. Just food for thought.

[Russell]

Iran Barkley would take Fitz's head off his shoulders and Duran spanked Barkley. Just food for thought.

Seriously? :?

[Sweet Pea]

Iran Barkley would take Fitz's head off his shoulders and Duran spanked Barkley. Just food for thought.Duran didn't spank Barkley, it was a close fight that he won narrowly. And the whole Barkley/Fitz thing is all subjective given the different eras, and Fitz looking very poor on film by modern standards.

[Seamus]

Duran didn't spank Barkley, it was a close fight that he won narrowly. And the whole Barkley/Fitz thing is all subjective given the different eras, and Fitz looking very poor on film by modern standards.

No, he did not spank him.

Sometimes, I watch those 1910 and before fighters and shake my head. They do so much so wrong. I know the rules have changed but when was it ever wise to fight leaning backwards with your hands at your sides and taking looping haymakers? Sometimes it requires too much suspension of disbelief.

[Sweet Pea]

No, he did not spank him.

Sometimes, I watch those 1910 and before fighters and shake my head. They do so much so wrong. I know the rules have changed but when was it ever wise to fight leaning backwards with your hands at your sides and taking looping haymakers? Sometimes it requires too much suspension of disbelief.Whoops, I mis-read your post. I thought you said Fitz would take of Barkley's head, which is why I responded. I agree with you.

[apollack]

No, he did not spank him.

Sometimes, I watch those 1910 and before fighters and shake my head. They do so much so wrong. I know the rules have changed but when was it ever wise to fight leaning backwards with your hands at your sides and taking looping haymakers? Sometimes it requires too much suspension of disbelief.

Well, then you must think Muhammad Ali was one of the worst fighters ever, because he kept his hands at his sides and leaned back away from punches.

Disagree that Fitz took looping haymakers. Not sure what footage you are referrring to there.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, then you must think Muhammad Ali was one of the worst fighters ever, because he kept his hands at his sides and leaned back away from punches.

Disagree that Fitz took looping haymakers. Not sure what footage you are referrring to there.

I have just rewatched Fitz against Corbett and Duran against Barkley. I also rewatched Bob Foster against Quarry and Ali. Bob Foster actually carried his hands as low as Fitz. The difference is that Foster threw a great many jabs, but Fitz is in another world as far as foot speed and mobility is concerned. He moved around quickly. Despite carrying his hands low, I noticed he was able to frequently block punches. He also showed quite a bit of head movement.

Duran and Barkley appeared to be rooted in one place compared to Fitz. I saw nothing on the film which caused me to change my view that Fitz would be too much for Duran. It is a lot to ask a man who is smaller with a far shorter reach, is slower afoot, and is outgunned by quite a bit in power, to win against a man who was only bested by one man, and that an undefeated heavyweight champion who outweighed him by forty pounds, over a 15 year period in which he reigned as champion over three divisions.

[he grant]

First of everyone knows the film footage is projected at a different speed and does not reflect the actual movement of the old time fighters ...

Styles have evolved but I feel the argument is over rated ... you can watch film of Joe Gans and see that ...

It's an interesting, legit argument ...still, I see Fitz flattening the shaky chinned , easy to hit Barkley early ..

[Stonehands89]

"I don't have to see and drive a Model T to make a pretty safe assumption that it won't compete with a Lambourgini."

But a comparision to technology is worse than useless concerning a physical activity such as boxing. Boxing isn't anything like building automobiles or airplanes.

I think a better analogy would be juggling--a very difficult physical activity which like boxing takes years of practice and training to master. There are films of old-time jugglers on youtube. Check out Enrico Rastelli. He bounces a ball off his head while skipping rope, bounces two balls off his head at one time, juggles six plates in his hands while spinning a hoop on his left foot and skipping rope while standing on one leg, etc.
My point is this level of physical coordination and skill is so great that it is virtually impossible for a more modern juggler to be "better". The most they can do is equal this or that feat.
Do you take issue with boxing being referred to as a science? I don't. There is more science in car manufacture than there is in juggling, and there is more science in boxing than there is in juggling...

Juggling really strikes me as a worse analogy than my imperfect comparing the ancient to the modern. Juggling has neither the sophistication nor the dynamic nature of what is happening in the ring, not to mention that when you are getting hit, it's a whole different thing.

My use of the Model T analogy was simply to illustrate that boxing, like technology has changed and progressed. There may be different reasons for the changes but boxers became more efficient and more sophisticated; for example in the use of angles and in-fighting since the days of Fitz. Don't think that I overdue the "progressive science" of it. Boxing has stagnated in terms of skill and began to as early as the 1950s when the clubs closed down in my opinion.

Getting back to Fitz and Duran, I think Fitz would just be too big for Duran to dominate and the "culture shock" of fighting someone removed a century in time might effect Duran as much as Fitz. The difference is that Fitz could be made to look silly here and there and survive. I don't see Duran having the firepower to stop him. If Duran is caught off guard by a Fitz trick long out of use, he gets stretched. I take Fitz by a knockout.
I find it far more likely that Duran would have more tricks that Fitz had never seen than Duran -who was we must remember, the issue of the archaic Arcel and B.C Brown.

I see the fight as a clinic. And Duran, while not stopping the larger man, will make him look... amateurish.

[Sweet Pea]

I agree with Stonehands here, as I've basically said. I believe boxing has peaked and is currently in a ditch, but I can't believe that the sport peaked as soon as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around. That's just not logical, it would mean that the sport was founded(Queensbury rules) and reached its apex within about 20 years of conception or less, given whatever your point of view is. We've seen the footage, we understand how different not only the rules and regulations were, but also the techniques. So I don't understand how anyone could expect someone from that period to be thrown directly into a modern boxing ring with a brilliant modern technician like Duran and have any kind of success. The sport has evolved and peaked since those days(around the 40's IMO was when the sport truly modernized and began to peak skill-wise), I don't understand the arguments against it, especially given the film footage we have of fighters of that era like Fitz, Ketchell, Johnson, etc.

[Stonehands89]

I have just rewatched Fitz against Corbett and Duran against Barkley. I also rewatched Bob Foster against Quarry and Ali. Bob Foster actually carried his hands as low as Fitz. The difference is that Foster threw a great many jabs, but Fitz is in another world as far as foot speed and mobility is concerned. He moved around quickly. Despite carrying his hands low, I noticed he was able to frequently block punches. He also showed quite a bit of head movement.

Duran and Barkley appeared to be rooted in one place compared to Fitz. I saw nothing on the film which caused me to change my view that Fitz would be too much for Duran. It is a lot to ask a man who is smaller with a far shorter reach, is slower afoot, and is outgunned by quite a bit in power, to win against a man who was only bested by one man, and that an undefeated heavyweight champion who outweighed him by forty pounds, over a 15 year period in which he reigned as champion over three divisions.
I just rewatched Fitz's fights and the two Foster fights. Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz -and it's no virtue, which is why most fighters don't do it anymore. Back then, most of them did.

Foster paid for this flaw with unnecessary shots from Mike Quarry and with abuse by Ali. In fact, Ali's hands were relatively high in that fight and although he did catch a couple of Foster rights on the cheek, he also saw that Foster's stance is at too sharp of an angle and invited left hooks. Ali obliged and down went Bob.

Your statment about Fitz being in another world in terms of mobility just doesn't stand. What you see as superior movement I see as inefficiency. At one point against Corbett, Fitz runs and bends and actually turns away from Corbett. His mobility is limited to going straight in then going straight out... No angles.

What about Foster's infighting? What about his combinations? Neither Fitz nor Corbett do any real infighting. They stand straight up like sticks and don't even bend. They clinch in close (which were not broken up so easily if at all back then) and Fitz best idea of combination punching seems to be a right-left. That's it.

You're seeing Duran's being rooted in one place really misses all of those pivots, angles, infighting, and master defense that he demonstrated throughout that bout. Why should he get on wheels against Barkley? His range had to be in close because he was outgunned and outsized.

I'm actually quite surprised that you see nothing in the film aside from one commonality between the low-hands style of fighting then and Foster's flaw.

....
I for one, am not so eager to tout those records back then. I don't trust them. You write that he was bested by "one man over a 15 year period." That one man was Jeffries who was 9-0. But you forget that Ruby was KOd 9 years earlier by Jim Hall in Australia and KOd 4 years before that by Mike Dooley -also in Australia.

His record is not as legendary as it is often touted. Aside from the 3 belts, one of which was taken from a lunger, Ruby's record is reminiscent of Marcel Cerdan's. That is, lots of fluff. Fitzsimmons is listed as fighting 93 times. Somewhere near 52 of them were either 0-0 or had losing records. Damn near all 52 could rightly be considered novices. He beat three guys who had more than 20 wins -Hall, the Nonpareil (who had been suffering from turburculosis), and Maher. Thirty of these fights were at one place -Foley's Hall in Australia.

Ruby has some beautiful wins on his resume. No doubt about that. I just don't see how anyone can equate a win over a pioneer with a win over a modern fighter. Relatively speaking, it remains impressive. In real terms, less so.

[Stonehands89]

Flash Elorde, James Toney, Floyd Mayweather Jnr are fighters that come to mind as having used the technique.

Add three more:

Dempsey
McLarnin
Petrolle

[Robbi]

I agree with Stonehands here, as I've basically said. I believe boxing has peaked and is currently in a ditch, but I can't believe that the sport peaked as soon as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around. That's just not logical, it would mean that the sport was founded(Queensbury rules) and reached its apex within about 20 years of conception or less, given whatever your point of view is. We've seen the footage, we understand how different not only the rules and regulations were, but also the techniques. So I don't understand how anyone could expect someone from that period to be thrown directly into a modern boxing ring with a brilliant modern technician like Duran and have any kind of success. The sport has evolved and peaked since those days(around the 40's IMO was when the sport truly modernized and began to peak skill-wise), I don't understand the arguments against it, especially given the film footage we have of fighters of that era like Fitz, Ketchell, Johnson, etc.

I think as the rules changed the fighters did improve their technique. It was only natural that they did when you think about it. The amount of holding, pushing, and hitting on the break limited a fighters skills. The fighters back then relied a lot more on being physically strong. When Jack Johnson fought Ketchel he was knocked down and got straight back up immediately to floor Ketchel in return. With stricter rules things became technically more tidy. The people who watched boxing back in the early part of the last century weren't too bothered about what they were witnessing as thats all they knew. They were use to watching the sport with a bit of wrestling. When fighters were instructed to go to a nuetral corner after knockdowns and were penalised for holding it done the sport good. During the 40's I think boxing became to bloosom technically. The 30's was the adjustment period IMO.

[OLD FOGEY]

Do you take issue with boxing being referred to as a science? I don't. There is more science in car manufacture than there is in juggling, and there is more science in boxing than there is in juggling...

Juggling really strikes me as a worse analogy than my imperfect comparing the ancient to the modern. Juggling has neither the sophistication nor the dynamic nature of what is happening in the ring, not to mention that when you are getting hit, it's a whole different thing.

My use of the Model T analogy was simply to illustrate that boxing, like technology has changed and progressed. There may be different reasons for the changes but boxers became more efficient and more sophisticated; for example in the use of angles and in-fighting since the days of Fitz. Don't think that I overdue the "progressive science" of it. Boxing has stagnated in terms of skill and began to as early as the 1950s when the clubs closed down in my opinion.


I find it far more likely that Duran would have more tricks that Fitz had never seen than Duran -who was we must remember, the issue of the archaic Arcel and B.C Brown.

I see the fight as a clinic. And Duran, while not stopping the larger man, will make him look... amateurish.

Boxing is closer to an art than a science. If "scientific" knowledge in the sense of skill were all that mattered, Duran would have been fighting Hearns and not Barkley. Hearns had it all over Barkley in skill, but one right did him in.

Yes, people do not hit jugglers. I imagine that skipping rope while bouncing a ball off your head would not be possible if someone were sticking jabs in your snout at the same time.

I still think juggling, or other difficult physical skills, are far better analogies to boxing than the advance of mechanical science dolled up with pseudo-Darwinian gobbledegook. Just my opinion.

Did either Arcel or Brown actually see Fitz fight? You missed my point that Duran might confuse Fitz now and again, or even often, with tricks, but I think Fitz most likely would survive. Duran might not have the slack to be confused even once or this fight is over. Against Corbett, a much bigger man and faster on his feet, the film shows Corbett throwing what seems even today a textbook jab. Fitz slips it to the outside and quickly pivots in with a left to the body that finishes Corbett. I don't see Duran beating Corbett under any circumstances.
Size does matter.

I don't think there would be much infighting for the same reason a battleship with 16 mile range batteries does not, if it can help it, exchange at 6 miles with a battleship with 10 mile range batteries. It would be in Fitz's interest to keep this fight at a distance, and with an advantage in foot speed and a vast advantage in reach, and far greater power, he has the weapons to do it.

By the way, Arcel said Dempsey, who fought much closer to Fitz's era than to Duran's--Fitz was actually still having fights when Dempsey was active--would defeat any of the later champions. How do you know he would have assumed Duran beats Fitz? Did he ever say so?

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree with Stonehands here, as I've basically said. I believe boxing has peaked and is currently in a ditch, but I can't believe that the sport peaked as soon as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around. That's just not logical, it would mean that the sport was founded(Queensbury rules) and reached its apex within about 20 years of conception or less, given whatever your point of view is. We've seen the footage, we understand how different not only the rules and regulations were, but also the techniques. So I don't understand how anyone could expect someone from that period to be thrown directly into a modern boxing ring with a brilliant modern technician like Duran and have any kind of success. The sport has evolved and peaked since those days(around the 40's IMO was when the sport truly modernized and began to peak skill-wise), I don't understand the arguments against it, especially given the film footage we have of fighters of that era like Fitz, Ketchell, Johnson, etc.

"I can't believe the sport peaked as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around."

Boxing was around for two centuries before Fitzsimmons, but who is arguing it peaked in the 1890's. Boxing at that point was restricted to the British Empire and the United States. It was illegal in much of the United States. The issue is not the average level of boxing in the 1890's versus the 1980's. The issue is Fitz versus Duran. I would point out that Fitz was the HEAVYWEIGHT champion of his era and defeated men much bigger than any good fighter Duran defeated. Duran was very erratic once he moved past welterweight. His only impressive wins were over a washed up Cuevas, a Moore who may not have been that good or that experienced, and the tough but rather crude Barkley. Only Barkley was even a middleweight. Fitz was competing at an unlimited weight and was blowing out the top big men of the time. Fitz was simply a naturally much bigger man who went 15 years while being honestly bested only by the huge Jeffries.

[Bad_Intentions]

at middleweight?

fitz is way too big for little duran.

Fitz UD.

[Sweet Pea]

"I can't believe the sport peaked as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around."

Boxing was around for two centuries before Fitzsimmons, but who is arguing it peaked in the 1890's. Boxing at that point was restricted to the British Empire and the United States. It was illegal in much of the United States. The issue is not the average level of boxing in the 1890's versus the 1980's. The issue is Fitz versus Duran. I would point out that Fitz was the HEAVYWEIGHT champion of his era and defeated men much bigger than any good fighter Duran defeated. Duran was very erratic once he moved past welterweight. His only impressive wins were over a washed up Cuevas, a Moore who may not have been that good or that experienced, and the tough but rather crude Barkley. Only Barkley was even a middleweight. Fitz was competing at an unlimited weight and was blowing out the top big men of the time. Fitz was simply a naturally much bigger man who went 15 years while being honestly bested only by the huge Jeffries.Fitz fought at HW at times, but he himself was a natural MW, which Duran had faced, and modernized ones at that.

And you'll notice I mentioned Queensbury rules, not the primitive bareknuckle "boxing" of centuries past.

[OLD FOGEY]

I just rewatched Fitz's fights and the two Foster fights. Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz -and it's no virtue, which is why most fighters don't do it anymore. Back then, most of them did.

Foster paid for this flaw with unnecessary shots from Mike Quarry and with abuse by Ali. In fact, Ali's hands were relatively high in that fight and although he did catch a couple of Foster rights on the cheek, he also saw that Foster's stance is at too sharp of an angle and invited left hooks. Ali obliged and down went Bob.

Your statment about Fitz being in another world in terms of mobility just doesn't stand. What you see as superior movement I see as inefficiency. At one point against Corbett, Fitz runs and bends and actually turns away from Corbett. His mobility is limited to going straight in then going straight out... No angles.

What about Foster's infighting? What about his combinations? Neither Fitz nor Corbett do any real infighting. They stand straight up like sticks and don't even bend. They clinch in close (which were not broken up so easily if at all back then) and Fitz best idea of combination punching seems to be a right-left. That's it.

You're seeing Duran's being rooted in one place really misses all of those pivots, angles, infighting, and master defense that he demonstrated throughout that bout. Why should he get on wheels against Barkley? His range had to be in close because he was outgunned and outsized.

I'm actually quite surprised that you see nothing in the film aside from one commonality between the low-hands style of fighting then and Foster's flaw.

....
I for one, am not so eager to tout those records back then. I don't trust them. You write that he was bested by "one man over a 15 year period." That one man was Jeffries who was 9-0. But you forget that Ruby was KOd 9 years earlier by Jim Hall in Australia and KOd 4 years before that by Mike Dooley -also in Australia.

His record is not as legendary as it is often touted. Aside from the 3 belts, one of which was taken from a lunger, Ruby's record is reminiscent of Marcel Cerdan's. That is, lots of fluff. Fitzsimmons is listed as fighting 93 times. Somewhere near 52 of them were either 0-0 or had losing records. Damn near all 52 could rightly be considered novices. He beat three guys who had more than 20 wins -Hall, the Nonpareil (who had been suffering from turburculosis), and Maher. Thirty of these fights were at one place -Foley's Hall in Australia.

Ruby has some beautiful wins on his resume. No doubt about that. I just don't see how anyone can equate a win over a pioneer with a win over a modern fighter. Relatively speaking, it remains impressive. In real terms, less so.

"Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz's--and it's no virtue."

Perhaps not a virtue, but who beat him at his own weight. Not many, Ali handled him but Ali was 41 lbs heavier. Duran is closer to Foster in weight than Foster was to Ali. Do you think Duran beats Foster? I don't.

Plenty of guys fought with their hands high in that era. Watch Dick Tiger for example, or Jose Torres. Tiger got blown out by Foster, though, and I have my doubts that Torres would have beaten him. Carrying your hands high might not be quite the be-all and end-all that you assume.

On Marcel Cerdan--Cerdan had a spectacular record against general opposition, better than most in fact. Yes, this record is somewhat bloated by fighting a lot of second raters. But criticism can go too far. Cerdan fought ten fights against fighters rated when he fought them, and won eight of those fights. One loss was a disputed hometown decisions which he subsequently reversed. The other was to LaMotta in a fight in which Cerdan was injured. An 80% winning percentage against rated fighters is better than most Hall-of-Famers can claim.

On Fitz's record--As Janitor has pointed out time and again, and I think it is fair, we just don't know what the records were of most fighters from that era. Take Arthur Upham, for example. Off boxrec, he never won a fight. Yet he was imported from Canada to test Fitz before Fitz fought Dempsey. If they wanted a pushover, they could have gotten a local pushover. Why put up a big purse for Upham? I think he obviously had a lot of fights that are unrecorded to have built a reputation that carried to New Orleans from Canada.

From 1890 to 1905, Fitz did defeat Dempsey, Creedan, Hall, Maher (2), Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Gardner, all of whom were top men of the time. He probably should have had a second win over Sharkey and a win over Choynski, both of which ended with his opponent old cold on the canvas. He lost clearly only to Jeffries. How good were the rest of his opponents, such as Edward Rollins, for example. I can't say, and this does leave a certain question mark over Fitz, but no one since has been able to accomplish what Fitz did, and I don't see Duran defeating any of those that came anywhere close--Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, or Michael Spinks. They are just too big.

[Stonehands89]

Boxing is closer to an art than a science. If "scientific" knowledge in the sense of skill were all that mattered, Duran would have been fighting Hearns and not Barkley. Hearns had it all over Barkley in skill, but one right did him in.
I never said that skill/science were all that mattered. I'd say that boxing is science, art, intanglibles, and a little luck...in that order. It's science first, I'd stand by that. The absolute necessity of instruction and experience in the ring really does away with any idea that it's more art than science.

You know that the immediate reason why Hearns got blasted out by Barkley: It was because he had his left hand by his waist while in range (kind of like what Fitz and co. did constantly). Barkley survived because he was one tough SOB, but he landed the sleepytime shot because Hearns made a mistake.

Yes, people do not hit jugglers. I imagine that skipping rope while bouncing a ball off your head would not be possible if someone were sticking jabs in your snout at the same time.

I still think juggling, or other difficult physical skills, are far better analogies to boxing than the advance of mechanical science dolled up with pseudo-Darwinian gobblygook. Just my opinion.
Do you mean gobbledygook? I thought the analogy was pretty clear but I will dumb it down upon your request next time. Feel free to use your own analogies, although I'll still tell you that the juggling analogy sucked. Just my opinion.

Did either Arcel or Brown actually see Fitz fight? You missed my point that Duran might confuse Fitz now and again, or even often, with tricks, but I think Fitz most likely would survive. Duran might not have the slack to be confused even once or this fight is over. Against Corbett, a much bigger man and faster on his feet, the film shows Corbett throwing what seems even today a textbook jab. Fitz slips it to the outside and quickly pivots in with a left to the body that finishes Corbett. I don't see Duran beating Corbett under any circumstances.

Size does matter.
Skills matter more.

And you missed my point about Arcel and Brown. They had the wisdom of the ages -Arcel since the 1920s. They gave it to Duran. Duran was exceptionally well-schooled. That's the point there.

What difference is their having seen Fitz fight?

I don't think there would be much infighting for the same reason a battleship with 16 mile range batteries does not, if it can help it, exchange at 6 miles with a battleship with 10 mile range batteries. It would be in Fitz's interest to keep this fight at a distance, and with an advantage in foot speed and a vast advantage in reach, and far greater power, he has the weapons to do it.
The battleship is no longer the warship of choice. The aircraft carrier is. Progress again.

By the way, Arcel said Dempsey, who fought much closer to Fitz's era than to Duran's--Fitz was actually still having fights when Dempsey was active--would defeat any of the later champions. How do you know he would have assumed Duran beats Fitz? Did he ever say so?
Arcel was convinced that Dempsey would have whipped Frazier and Ali both in 1971. I half agree. I think he may have been understandably nostalgic. I never said that Arcel assumed "Duran would beat Fitz", again, I was merely offering argument in the way of Duran having about 6 decades of boxing knowledge (read: science) in his head.

I agree that Duran could ill-afford to take many shots from any larger man, and agree that Ruby could hit. I temper my enthusiasm though, simply because HWs wore 4 ounce gloves back then and because they did not punch in combination very often at all, preferring to stand off, wait, clinch, and throw 1 or maybe 2 shots at a time. They didn't have much of an inside game and many shots were sloppy. Duran makes you pay dearly for sloppy shots.

Ruby threw short punches with great leverage and in that sense he was ahead of his time, he could also slip shots more than most back then. But his style still screams of the primitive to eyes that may not be as nostalgic as yours.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fitz fought at HW at times, but he himself was a natural MW, which Duran had faced, and modernized ones at that.

And you'll notice I mentioned Queensbury rules, not the primitive bareknuckle "boxing" of centuries past.

Fitz certainly became a natural super-middleweight or lightheavyweight. He generally weighed in the 160's from the early 1890's on. He was over 160 for the Hall rematch, for example. At 6 foot, he is simply a bigger man than Duran and he had a fluky build which allowed him to fight bigger than he was. Think Monzon.

I understand where you guys are coming from concerning superior modern skill. I think there is a lot to it, but you are carrying it into an ideology and ignoring that Fitz was in fact rather skilled, as the film of the Corbett fight shows, and had enormous physical advantages over Duran.

[OLD FOGEY]

I never said that skill/science were all that mattered. I'd say that boxing is science, art, intanglibles, and a little luck...in that order. It's science first, I'd stand by that. The absolute necessity of instruction and experience in the ring really does away with any idea that it's more art than science.

You know that the immediate reason why Hearns got blasted out by Barkley: It was because he had his left hand by his waist while in range (kind of like what Fitz and co. did constantly). Barkley survived because he was one tough SOB, but he landed the sleepytime shot because Hearns made a mistake.


Do you mean gobbledygook? I thought the analogy was pretty clear but I will dumb it down upon your request next time. Feel free to use your own analogies, although I'll still tell you that the juggling analogy sucked. Just my opinion.


Skills matter more.

And you missed my point about Arcel and Brown. They had the wisdom of the ages -Arcel since the 1920s. They gave it to Duran. Duran was exceptionally well-schooled. That's the point there.

What difference is their having seen Fitz fight?


The battleship is no longer the warship of choice. The aircraft carrier is. Progress again.


Arcel was convinced that Dempsey would have whipped Frazier and Ali both in 1971. I half agree. I think he may have been understandably nostalgic. I never said that Arcel assumed "Duran would beat Fitz", again, I was merely offering argument in the way of Duran having about 6 decades of boxing knowledge (read: science) in his head.

I agree that Duran could ill-afford to take many shots from any larger man, and agree that Ruby could hit. I temper my enthusiasm though, simply because HWs wore 4 ounce gloves back then and because they did not punch in combination very often at all, preferring to stand off, wait, clinch, and throw 1 or maybe 2 shots at a time. They didn't have much of an inside game and many shots were sloppy. Duran makes you pay dearly for sloppy shots.

Ruby threw short punches with great leverage and in that sense he was ahead of his time, he could also slip shots more than most back then. But his style still screams of the primitive to eyes that may not be as nostalgic as yours.

1. Hearns got blasted out by Barkley because he had his left at his side--fair enough, but he also carried his left at his side against Duran and it did not matter. Duran did not have the reach nor the power to take advantage. I don't think he does with Fitz either.

2. Aircraft carrier is warship of choice--And an aircraft carrier carrying planes with a six hundred mile range would probably prefer not to get involved with an aircraft carrier whose planes only fly 300 miles at less than 300 miles.

3. Thank you. Gobbledegook is spelled gobbledegook, but gobblygook or gobbledegook. a theory that equates the evolution of rabbits or boxing with the mechanical improvements of trucks is nonsense. And juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to boxing.

4. I agree that in the very sparse film available of Fitz, he does not show many combinations, nor does he throw many jabs. I think a jab more than combinations would doom Duran because of the size factor.
On combinations, though, how many complex combinations did Monzon throw? He generally stuck with the basic one-twos.

[Stonehands89]

"Foster carried his hands almost as low as Fitz's--and it's no virtue."

Perhaps not a virtue, but who beat him at his own weight. No many, Ali handled him but Ali was 41 lbs heavier. Duran is closer to Foster in weight than Foster was to Ali. Do you think Duran beats Foster? I don't.

Plenty of guys fought with their hands high in that era. Watch Dick Tiger for example, or Jose Torres. Tiger got blown out by Foster, though, and I have my doubts that Torres would have beaten him. Carrying your hands high might not be quite the be-all and end-all that you assume.
Duran would get destroyed by Foster, but that does not in any way provide argument on behalf of carrying your hands low, Fogey. No trainer in his right mind would say anything less than "KEEP YOUR HANDS UP" when they see their charges developing that bad habit.

Tiger got ruined by Foster because Foster hit him with cruise missiles -not because Foster held his hands low.

Foster was a great fighter despite his flaws. Every fighter has flaws and sometimes they pay for them. I'd say, in the vast majority of instances, a fighter's flaws catch up with them. And that includes Foster and Ali.

On Marcel Cerdan--Cerdan had a spectacular record against general opposition, better than most in fact. Yes, this record is somewhat bloated by fighting a lot of second raters. But criticism can go too far. Cerdan fought ten fights against fighters rated when he fought them, and won eight of those fights. One loss was a disputed hometown decisions which he subsequently reversed. The other was to LaMotta in a fight in which Cerdan was injured. An 80% winning percentage against rated fighters is better than most Hall-of-Famers can claim.
Cerdan was a great fighter with a fluffy record. His fluffy record does not diminish his greatness, but it does provide an example that is akin to Ruby's record.

On Fitz's record--As Janitor has pointed out time and again, and I think it is fair, we just don't know what the records were of most fighters from that era. Take Arthur Upham, for example. Off boxrec, he never won a fight. Yet he was imported from Canada to test Fitz before Fitz fought Dempsey. If they wanted a pushover, they could have gotten a local pushover. Why put up a big purse for Upham? I think he obviously had a lot of fights that are unrecorded to have built a reputation that carried to New Orleans from Canada.

From 1890 to 1905, Fitz did defeat Dempsey, Creedan, Hall, Maher (2), Corbett, Sharkey, Ruhlin, and Gardner, all of whom were top men of the time. He probably should have had a second win over Sharkey and a win over Choynski, both of which ended with his opponent old cold on the canvas. He lost clearly only to Jeffries. How good were the rest of his opponents, such as Edward Rollins, for example. I can't say, and this does leave a certain question mark over Fitz, but no one since has been able to accomplish what Fitz did, and I don't see Duran defeating any of those that came anywhere close--Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, or Michael Spinks. They are just too big.
Upon closer examination, your argument here is not compelling.

First of all, Ruby never weighed more than about 172. He wouldn't be allowed to fight Heavies these days. Duran was restrained by rules that required him to approach weight limits. Second of all, Duran had a LW frame -he was of the Hispanic race and therefore naturally a small man. And I do not believe that his accomplishments against Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley are any less impressive give the circumstances than Fitzsimmons' accomplishments.

As to your statement about the mysterious records back then. You merely affirm what I already wrote in an earlier post, namely that you cannot trust those archaic records. I am not about to assume that Fitz's last fight was against a formidable opponent -because the guys record was 0-0. He doesn't deserve a reputation. That's all we have to go on -an 0-0 record. If there is information that tells me otherwise, fine, my mind is open, but in the absence of information, I equate Ruby's 0-0 conquests with those 5 bums that Foreman took out in 1975.

In fact, I just looked all of his 0-0 conquests from 1891-1914 and only one of them ever fought again. They all ended their careers with an 0-1 record -save one who went 0-2. These weren't fighters, Fogey. They have been two-fisted hobos looking for a meal, or barroom brawlers with a reputation, but they weren't fighters.

[Stonehands89]

1. Hearns got blasted out by Barkley because he had his left at his side--fair enough, but he also carried his left at his side against Duran and it did not matter. Duran did not have the reach nor the power to take advantage. I don't think he does with Fitz either.
Duran had the power to hurt Hearns, but Duran never got the damn opportunity. Again, Hearns' low left cost him throughout his career. Barkley made Hearns pay for dropping his left and then in turn Barkley dropped his left after a jab and Duran sent him reeling in round 1.

That's respectable power -and I'd say that Barkley was taller and stronger than Bob -especially in the leg department.

In another post you called Barkley "crude" -and yet you cannot bring yourself to concede that the fighters we see on film from the early 20th century were comparatively crude. I'm calling you on that.

2. Aircraft carrier is warship of choice--And an aircraft carrier carrying planes with a six hundred mile range would probably prefer not to get involved with an aircraft carrier whose planes only fly 300 miles at less than 300 miles.
You misunderstand. The days of battleships are over. We should not expect them to compete with aircraft carriers anymore than we can expect a Model T to compete with ....oh never mind.

Of course, a battleship could still overcome a smaller modern ship, but not necessarily. It's tough to overcome modern science.

3. Thank you. Gobbledegook is spelled gobbledegook, but gobblygook or gobbledegook. a theory that equates the evolution of rabbits or boxing with the mechanical improvements of trucks is nonsense. And juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to boxing.
Juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to motherhood.

You seem to be hung up on the mechanics of the analogy. Not only is it not nonsensical, it's common sense: Things progress. When science is applied to a task -be it building cars or breeding rabbits or building fighters, it makes adjustments based on trial and error and builds upon itself.

You're beef is with progress, not the analogy.

4. I agree that in the very sparse film available of Fitz, he does not show many combinations, nor does he throw many jabs. I think a jab more than combinations would doom Duran because of the size factor.
On combinations, though, how many complex combinations did Monzon throw? He generally stuck with the basic one-twos.
Monzon regularly threw 3 and 4 punch combinations to the body and the head. Often behind a double jab; and these against technicians like Valdez and Napoles. Monzon was neither flashy nor fast, but he was a modern-style fighter who's toughness hearkened back to the days of endless rounds and smaller gloves.

[OLD FOGEY]

Duran had the power to hurt Hearns, but Duran never got the damn opportunity. Again, Hearns' low left cost him throughout his career. Barkley made Hearns pay for dropping his left and then in turn Barkley dropped his left after a jab and Duran sent him reeling in round 1.

That's respectable power -and I'd say that Barkley was taller and stronger than Bob -especially in the leg department.

In another post you called Barkley "crude" -and yet you cannot bring yourself to concede that the fighters we see on film from the early 20th century were comparatively crude. I'm calling you on that.


You misunderstand. The days of battleships are over. We should not expect them to compete with aircraft carriers anymore than we can expect a Model T to compete with ....oh never mind.

Of course, a battleship could still overcome a smaller modern ship, but not necessarily. It's tough to overcome modern science.


Juggling is a physical skill comparable in many ways to motherhood.

You seem to be hung up on the mechanics of the analogy. Not only is it not nonsensical, it's common sense: Things progress. When science is applied to a task -be it building cars or breeding rabbits or building fighters, it makes adjustments based on trial and error and builds upon itself.

You're beef is with progress, not the analogy.


Monzon regularly threw 3 and 4 punch combinations to the body and the head. Often behind a double jab; and these against technicians like Valdez and Napoles. Monzon was neither flashy nor fast, but he was a modern-style fighter who's toughness hearkened back to the days of endless rounds and smaller gloves.

"Juggling is a skill comparable to motherhood."

Motherhood is not a learned talent. Most people could not be world class jugglers, or pianists, or boxers, without a great deal of commitment and dedication, plus exceptional innate ability.

I don't admit Fitz was crude because I don't see that on the limited film. Perhaps it is harsh to say Barkley was crude, but he didn't have Fitz's foot or head movement.

On battleships--actually you misunderstood from the beginning and brought in a worthless point about aircraft carriers. My point was that Fitz would fight Duran at a distance because he had greater reach. The guns of a battleship was an analogy, but bows and arrows, rifles, or rockets would serve as well. If your weapons have greater range (in boxing-reach) you would prefer to fight at greater range.

Trouble with comparing Fitz to Monzon is that we only have a few minutes of Fitz. Still Monzon in his own days was criticized by some for lacking combinations. It sure didn't hurt him.

"Things progress"

Some things do. And with some it is not so clear. If the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff? Records argue otherwise.
Is the best modern juggler better than Rastelli? Film argues otherwise. If the best modern dancer better than Robinson or Astaire. Many would say no.

That all things progress all the time is mere ideology and not very subtle or convincing ideology at that.

[Sweet Pea]

Fitz certainly became a natural super-middleweight or lightheavyweight. He generally weighed in the 160's from the early 1890's on. He was over 160 for the Hall rematch, for example. At 6 foot, he is simply a bigger man than Duran and he had a fluky build which allowed him to fight bigger than he was. Think Monzon.

I understand where you guys are coming from concerning superior modern skill. I think there is a lot to it, but you are carrying it into an ideology and ignoring that Fitz was in fact rather skilled, as the film of the Corbett fight shows, and had enormous physical advantages over Duran.This fight would be at MW, so Fitz's size at LHW and whatnot wouldn't come into play.

My point is that Duran has faced MW's, IMO much better ones by modern standards, mainly in Hagler, whom he fared well against. He also beat Iran Barkley at 37 years of age or thereabouts. So I don't see anything aside from a height advantage seperating the two from fighting at MW, and Duran is simply far more skilled from what I've seen. I haven't seen any footage of Fitz that leads me to believe he'd be able to compete with modern day MW's, not in the Corbett footage, not in any footage.

[OLD FOGEY]

Duran would get destroyed by Foster, but that does not in any way provide argument on behalf of carrying your hands low, Fogey. No trainer in his right mind would say anything less than "KEEP YOUR HANDS UP" when they see their charges developing that bad habit.

Tiger got ruined by Foster because Foster hit him with cruise missiles -not because Foster held his hands low.

Foster was a great fighter despite his flaws. Every fighter has flaws and sometimes they pay for them. I'd say, in the vast majority of instances, a fighter's flaws catch up with them. And that includes Foster and Ali.


Cerdan was a great fighter with a fluffy record. His fluffy record does not diminish his greatness, but it does provide an example that is akin to Ruby's record.


Upon closer examination, your argument here is not compelling.

First of all, Ruby never weighed more than about 172. He wouldn't be allowed to fight Heavies these days. Duran was restrained by rules that required him to approach weight limits. Second of all, Duran had a LW frame -he was of the Hispanic race and therefore naturally a small man. And I do not believe that his accomplishments against Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley are any less impressive give the circumstances than Fitzsimmons' accomplishments.

As to your statement about the mysterious records back then. You merely affirm what I already wrote in an earlier post, namely that you cannot trust those archaic records. I am not about to assume that Fitz's last fight was against a formidable opponent -because the guys record was 0-0. He doesn't deserve a reputation. That's all we have to go on -an 0-0 record. If there is information that tells me otherwise, fine, my mind is open, but in the absence of information, I equate Ruby's 0-0 conquests with those 5 bums that Foreman took out in 1975.

In fact, I just looked all of his 0-0 conquests from 1891-1914 and only one of them ever fought again. They all ended their careers with an 0-1 record -save one who went 0-2. These weren't fighters, Fogey. They have been two-fisted hobos looking for a meal, or barroom brawlers with a reputation, but they weren't fighters.

Foster paid for his flaws after he grew old and after a six year reign as lightheavyweight champion that is among the best ever at that weight. This raises the issue of whether his "flaws" were really flaws or if they are only ways of doing things with which you disagree. The same is true of Ali.

Fitz generally fought in the 160's through his peak. More importantly, he fought men who were substantially larger, certainly cruiserweights by modern standards, and some who even today would be heavyweights. He kept his punch against these bigger men.

On Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley--If you want to consider Duran the better p4p fighter, fair enough, but he didn't beat the middleweight Hagler, lost 2 of 3 to the welterweight Leonard, Barkley was so-so, and Buchanan was a lightweight. However you consider Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin p4p, they were much bigger men and I think it is reasonable to be more impressed with beating them than a lightweight, in a none p4p evaluation.

Fitz deserves no particular credit for beating these men with no records, but my point is that at least some, if not most, of them, probably had fights we don't know about. Take Jim Daly--supposedly he fought McCaffery, McAuliffe, Slavin, and Maher in his first four bouts, all top heavyweights although he was only a middleweight. Doesn't make much sense to me. I think he had other fights, and I would say it is just as wrong to run with a lack of evidence to the conclusion that these men were all mere "toughmen" with no boxing experience. We just don't know.

[OLD FOGEY]

This fight would be at MW, so Fitz's size at LHW and whatnot wouldn't come into play.

My point is that Duran has faced MW's, IMO much better ones by modern standards, mainly in Hagler, whom he fared well against. He also beat Iran Barkley at 37 years of age or thereabouts. So I don't see anything aside from a height advantage seperating the two from fighting at MW, and Duran is simply far more skilled from what I've seen. I haven't seen any footage of Fitz that leads me to believe he'd be able to compete with modern day MW's, not in the Corbett footage, not in any footage.

"not in the Corbett footage, not in any footage"

The Corbett footage seems to be all there is that is of any use. Fitz was 46 when he fought Lang.

We have to agree to disagree. I think Fitz looks good on the Corbett footage. So does Corbett.

Fitz did not jab much against Corbett. That is something I would like to see him do. On the other hand, he is fighting a taller and very quick man. I would like to see how he fought a shorter man.

By the way, I was just watching Langford and Gans. Gans showed me much less than Fitz. He didn't seem to have a lot of movement against Kid Herman, held his hands low, like Fitz, and threw one punch at a time. He did flatten Herman with one counter right. Langford fought with his hands at his side through most of the film I watched. He did not even appear to be bothering with defense at all. I think Fitz had better skills than either Gans or Langford off the film. I would take Duran easily over Gans at lightweight.

[Stonehands89]

"Juggling is a skill comparable to motherhood."

Motherhood is not a learned talent. Most people could not be world class jugglers, or pianists, or boxers, without a great deal of commitment and dedication, plus exceptional innate ability.
Motherhood requires "skill, commitment, dedication" -and maternal instincts. Half the population cannot be mother's and many mothers aren't exactly good at it.

The juggling-motherhood statement was tongue in cheek, by the way.

I don't admit Fitz was crude because I don't see that on the limited film. Perhaps it is harsh to say Barkley was crude, but he didn't have Fitz's foot or head movement.
Fitz doesn't show any of the infighting, combination punching, much defensive skill, or angles that Barkley showed. Would you admit that Fitz style, as far as we can see, was comparatively simple?

On battleships--actually you misunderstood from the beginning and brought in a worthless point about aircraft carriers. My point was that Fitz would fight Duran at a distance because he had greater reach. The guns of a battleship was an analogy, but bows and arrows, rifles, or rockets would serve as well. If your weapons have greater range (in boxing-reach) you would prefer to fight at greater range.
No, I understood your battleship analogy completely. It was obvious. But you are declaring yourself immune to the opposing argument here: namely, that Ruby's style of fighting was consistent with boxers over 100 years ago, and Duran is a modern technician. Thus the aircraft carrier. That's just as obvious.

You want to make comparisons between weaponry/science from the same era. These guys have a century between them and you seem to find that irrelevant.

Trouble with comparing Fitz to Monzon is that we only have a few minutes of Fitz. Still Monzon in his own days was criticized by some for lacking combinations. It sure didn't hurt him.
If you want to believe that Fitz was able to demonstrate skills that today would be taken for granted, but chose not to on film, then that's your right. I think it's a stretch.

"Things progress"

Some things do. And with some it is not so clear. If the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff? Records argue otherwise.
Is the best modern juggler better than Rastelli? Film argues otherwise. If the best modern dancer better than Robinson or Astaire. Many would say no.

That all things progress all the time is mere ideology and not very subtle or convincing ideology at that.
Absolutely. And if I was arguing that "ALL things progress all the time" then your retort would fit. Boxing skill did progress between 1900 and the 1940/50s and it strikes me as very clear that it did.

I have stated before that boxing has not progressed in that past 50 years and seems to have devolved due to many factors.

[Stonehands89]

Foster paid for his flaws after he grew old and after a six year reign as lightheavyweight champion that is among the best ever at that weight. This raises the issue of whether his "flaws" were really flaws or if they are only ways of doing things with which you disagree. The same is true of Ali.
In the opinion of every trainer you or I have ever known or heard of in the past 50 years, carrying your hands low in range is a flaw, as is pulling straight back from punches. Just because tall fighters and athletic stand-outs can get away with it, doesn't reduce it to mere matter of opinion.

I don't see this as a matter of what kind of ice cream you prefer. There are health risks in the ring. Would you encourage your fighters to keep their hands at their waists in range?

Fitz generally fought in the 160's through his peak. More importantly, he fought men who were substantially larger, certainly cruiserweights by modern standards, and some who even today would be heavyweights. He kept his punch against these bigger men.
Sure he did, but he also had the benefit of 4 ounce gloves. I'm not accusing Ruby per se but the gloves were commonly loaded back then.

I just cannot bring myself to equate his opposition then to what it would have been later.

On Buchanan, Leonard, Moore, Hagler, and Barkley--If you want to consider Duran the better p4p fighter, fair enough, but he didn't beat the middleweight Hagler, lost 2 of 3 to the welterweight Leonard, Barkley was so-so, and Buchanan was a lightweight. However you consider Corbett, Sharkey, and Ruhlin p4p, they were much bigger men and I think it is reasonable to be more impressed with beating them than a lightweight, in a none p4p evaluation.
Impressive indeed, but size isn't everything. I am utterly convinced that Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett -who is strikingly unimpressive on film.

Fitz deserves no particular credit for beating these men with no records, but my point is that at least some, if not most, of them, probably had fights we don't know about. Take Jim Daly--supposedly he fought McCaffery, McAuliffe, Slavin, and Maher in his first four bouts, all top heavyweights although he was only a middleweight. Doesn't make much sense to me. I think he had other fights, and I would say it is just as wrong to run with a lack of evidence to the conclusion that these men were all mere "toughmen" with no boxing experience. We just don't know.
I agree that we cannot reach solid conclusions, but it's tough to make something impressive out of an 0-0 record no matter how you slice it. I don't want to overstate that argument because all fighters have fluff on their records -as late as 1986 Duran fought some can who was making his pro debut (Suero?)

[Ted Spoon]

Greb is my top 3 and there is next to no film of him that is presently known. He is also very often touted by others who argue, sans any film like WW Robinson, that he is top 3 or 5
Indeed. And what if there was that footage?

Alas, I would say that neither does it relate to modernity as far as some ESB posters would have us believe...

I believe boxing has peaked and is currently in a ditch, but I can't believe that the sport peaked as soon as fighters like Fitzsimmons were around. That's just not logical, it would mean that the sport was founded(Queensbury rules) and reached its apex within about 20 years of conception or less, given whatever your point of view is. We've seen the footage, we understand how different not only the rules and regulations were, but also the techniques.

What happened was the changing rules tightened the fighting, but the fighting, the actual 'science', had been there for quite a while beforehand:

Parrying (stopping), spinning, cross-armed defence (barring), hooking (round punch), uppercuts and jabs (straight jolts) had been practised for centuries. Daniel Mendoza’s teachings are infamous.

These men had the bare basics and could apply them in different strains given the conditions…

Consider this:

Fitz meandered about the ring against Corbett with loose defensive techniques because he was considering the potential distance of the bout all the while trying to pick his spots to make it count. What looked ‘sloppy’ or ‘primitive’ was just doing enough; what was necessary.

Ironically, had he been highly wired, hands up, pumping range finders (pleasing a modern trainer), he probably would of lost after burning himself out and giving Corbett more target, but he slyly coasted through the bad times and started putting on the hurt with body blows later on.

Styles have evolved but I feel the argument is over rated ... you can watch film of Joe Gans and see that ...

Exactly, he grant, and that’s from just two fights.

Floyd Mayweather needed only needed the right lead and left hook to get Hatton every time. If you had Katsidis storming at Joe Gans he would be planted within the first half of the fight. He had that similar distance creating and defensive ability, to manipulate your efforts.

[OLD FOGEY]

Motherhood requires "skill, commitment, dedication" -and maternal instincts. Half the population cannot be mother's and many mothers aren't exactly good at it.

The juggling-motherhood statement was tongue in cheek, by the way.


Fitz doesn't show any of the infighting, combination punching, much defensive skill, or angles that Barkley showed. Would you admit that Fitz style, as far as we can see, was comparatively simple?


No, I understood your battleship analogy completely. It was obvious. But you are declaring yourself immune to the opposing argument here: namely, that Ruby's style of fighting was consistent with boxers over 100 years ago, and Duran is a modern technician. Thus the aircraft carrier. That's just as obvious.

You want to make comparisons between weaponry/science from the same era. These guys have a century between them and you seem to find that irrelevant.


If you want to believe that Fitz was able to demonstrate skills that today would be taken for granted, but chose not to on film, then that's your right. I think it's a stretch.


Absolutely. And if I was arguing that "ALL things progress all the time" then your retort would fit. Boxing skill did progress between 1900 and the 1940/50s and it strikes me as very clear that it did.

I have stated before that boxing has not progressed in that past 50 years and seems to have devolved due to many factors.

1. I will let motherhood go. I don't think it has much to do with juggling six plates, keeping a hoop spinning on your left foot, and skipping rope, all while standing on one leg.

2. I would disagree that he does not show defensive skill. He avoids punches by movement, ducking, and blocking. Except for the sixth round knockdown, Corbett does not hit him that much. His slippage of a Corbett jab and shift to the body is classic. He does not show much combination punching on the limited film we have, but Gilbert Odd's descriptions of his fights report "volleys" of punches and combinations which move from head to body and back. Without film, who can be certain, but I would say there is historical evidence he did use combinations. He had to track down Corbett and never trapped him to really unload.

3. On battleships--Neither biological evolution nor technological progress are worth diddly-squat as analogies to boxing. Certain complex learned skills, such as juggling, piano playing, typing, dancing, etc. are much closer in my view. We both apparently agree that such skills do not necessarily improve generation to generation. Does Fitz have all modern skills? You must remember we are seeing him in footage from a fight which I believe was to a finish. He had to preserve energy. I can understand why he and Corbett did not want to engage in much tiring in-close mauling, and why they did not throw a great many "punches in bunches" at the risk of needlessly expending energy. Corbett does throw a series of combinations when he had Fitz hurt in the sixth.

4. I agree with you that boxing did progress in knowledge and technique, especially over the first half of the 20th century. It went from an outlawed sport to one popular in many areas of the globe. However, there is a limit to how far superior knowledge and technique can carry you, or Archie Moore would have beaten Marciano and Patterson. Fitz was a natural 167 lber and in superb shape at that weight. Duran peaked at 135, was good at 147, and so-so above that weight. No one said anywhere that Fitz has to fight under his best weight in this fight. Fitz looks better than any other pioneer on film to me. Observers of his time, such as Hype Igoe, and opponents such as Jack Johnson, praised him as the hardest puncher they had seen or faced. Igoe consided him a more dangerous puncher than Dempsey.

[Ted Spoon]

Ted Spoon - When assessing this fight I can honestly only evaluate from what I'm seen...Even given Fitzsimmons' past his best on the avaliable film...(Was he past his best v Cobett?)
It is feasible that Fitz would be very aggressive and press the action hard...but when doing that in the ring, openings for the opponent, especially of Duran's caliber would be painfully exploited. Duran thrived against aggressive fighters, by drawing leads either lefts or rights, bobbing under and countering with hard rights. In fact, when Duran's opponents pressed, Duran did not have to work as hard to land his blows.
One does not need to move like an Ali, Corbett, or Ray Leonard to effectively create distance against an ultra aggressive foe. Distance can be gained by subtle shifts, movement from the head and waist, a nudge to help an onrushing past you, economical footwork pivoting to the side...Benny Leonard did all of this...Duran knows those tricks as well.

Duran was fantastically subtle at doing all of this in an aggressive manner, but physically, is so much more slight than Fitzsimmons. Not so much in size, but in strength.

Fitzsimmons was more of a killer at Middleweight than Duran was at Lightweight in terms of pure potency. Where does this realistically leave Duran?

Fitzsimmons is Bob Foster with superior two-handed punching and a Heavyweight chin. Everyone who fought Fitzsimmons got hit, one way or another, and he had a tendency to destroy the iron men of his era.

A question...could Fitzsimmons press an attack with the weight on the front leg like the heavyweight Jack Dempsey? I think one would need to be a proponent of the bob and weave style, to effectively press the action like you suggest Fitzsimmons would employ against Duran. Did Fitzsimmons possess that attribute? He stands very erect while fighting (from what I've seen) Fitzsimmons weight shifting from the backfoot creates impressive leverage for powerful blows for sure. It is a pure form of bodyweight punching. But Duran is not a stationary opponent by any means...While Fitz gets set, Duran pivots and fires...then moves. Duran was very fluid at this and against some very fast opponents. Who among Fitzsimmons' opponents would be a comparable stylistic analogy to Duran?
If Fitz is capable of the footwork required to close the distance and fire off punches from his loaded trigger stance...Wouldn't the energy expediture be enormous?

Fitzsimmons did not come at you like Dempsey, nobody did, but he cornered you with speed and threw hooks to the head and body with deceptive precision and power.

Duran is Duran, there was nobody else like him, but Fitzsimmons fought a huge variety of fighters; stronger, more powerful and tougher fighters than Duran, who he demolished. Maher and Sharkey were real game bangers; Choynski was a sharp-shooting puncher, Corbett a gliding boxer.

Ted Spoon will project all the good that could be possibly said of Duran, but Fitzsimmons is again getting sold more than a bit short here.

He would not be at a loss with anyone. The man was a killer, a scientific war horse with cannons for fists. Duran's ability would not skirt past this kind of danger. He may be able to hustle with Barkley, but Fitzsimmons...

Barkley could be bargained with, nobody bargained with 'The Fighting Blacksmith'. You either had the goods to beat him or you didn't. No fighter whose natural weight is below Fitzsimmons beats him.

[OLD FOGEY]

In the opinion of every trainer you or I have ever known or heard of in the past 50 years, carrying your hands low in range is a flaw, as is pulling straight back from punches. Just because tall fighters and athletic stand-outs can get away with it, doesn't reduce it to mere matter of opinion.

I don't see this as a matter of what kind of ice cream you prefer. There are health risks in the ring. Would you encourage your fighters to keep their hands at their waists in range?


Sure he did, but he also had the benefit of 4 ounce gloves. I'm not accusing Ruby per se but the gloves were commonly loaded back then.

I just cannot bring myself to equate his opposition then to what it would have been later.


Impressive indeed, but size isn't everything. I am utterly convinced that Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett -who is strikingly unimpressive on film.


I agree that we cannot reach solid conclusions, but it's tough to make something impressive out of an 0-0 record no matter how you slice it. I don't want to overstate that argument because all fighters have fluff on their records -as late as 1986 Duran fought some can who was making his pro debut (Suero?)

1. Why didn't Foster's trainer break him of this bad habit? Why didn't Hearns' trainer?

2. "There are health risks in the ring"

Fitz knew that. He killed two men in the ring.

3. Are four ounce gloves purely a benefit? Gilbert Odd reports that Fitz said he went to the body if possible to spare his hands the damage of head punching. With modern gloves, Fitz might be even more dangerous as he could unload to the head without paying the price of damaged hands.

4. "I cannot bring myself to equate his opposition then to what it would have been later."

Perhaps, but no one since has been undisputed champion at middle, lightheavy, and heavy, so he dominated his opposition more than any of his successors could.

5. "Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett"

I don't see this at all. Corbett was taller, twenty-five pounds heavier, a world quicker on his feet, and a powerful enough puncher to knock out big heavyweights such as Sullivan. He had the stamina to fight 61 rounds with Peter Jackson where he certainly held his own. Barkley would probably look like he was rooted in one spot if he fought Corbett. I don't see the Barkley who fought Duran as having any realistic chance against the Corbett who fought Fitz.

You are here saying that an average modern middleweight champion could defeat an outstanding heavyweight champion of a previous era. That is taking your "progress" ideology a long way.

I see much more talent in Corbett than you do. I am not alone. This is Gene Tunney after sparring with the 59 year old Corbett in 1925. "I honestly think he's better than Benny Leonard. It was the greatest thing I've ever seen."
Pictures of the sparring, by the way, show that Corbett was considerably taller and rangier than Tunney.

6. No one is trying to make something impressive of Fitz's minor fights. Even if these men had 40-5 type records, they were not world class. I am content that Fitz be judged on his fights with Dempsey, Hall, Creedan, Maher, Choynski, Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin, Jeffries, and Gardner. I also don't think it valid to make a big negative deal of the fact that the records of many of Fitz's lesser opponents have been lost to history.

[Stonehands89]

Indeed. And what if there was that footage?
If there was footage then I'd be more sure. Or less sure.

There are three camps in this ongoing debate:

The first camp holds that pioneers did possess skills that could be considered little different than modern skills and would compete on even terms with modern boxers.

The second cannot get by Corbett's butt cheeks in the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film and generally disdain their style of fighting.

The third believes that the pioneers should be revered and even ranked in p4p lists, but with caution due to the plain fact that we are forced to rely on reports and scant film and also because boxing was essentially a different sport then.

* If you are looking at 25 rounds, you will fight differently than if you are looking 15 rounds.

* If you are competing with 4 ounce gloves you will fight differently than if you are competing with 8 ounce gloves.

* If there is no neutral corner rule, the fight can be totally different.

* If boxing is fought underground due to its being an outlawed sport in a given state, it will be murkier and seedier.

* Finally, newspaper decisions also must be taken with a grain of salt.

These are just a few of the differences.

I'm in the third camp; but invite those in the first or second to outline their arguments differently if they take issue with how I've done it.

When it comes to the H2H, I believe that those in the first camp rely to much on assumptions and at times go into contortions to support the pioneer's ability to compete.

[Stonehands89]

1. I will let motherhood go. I don't think it has much to do with juggling six plates, keeping a hoop spinning on your left foot, and skipping rope, all while standing on one leg.
....

2. I would disagree that he does not show defensive skill. He avoids punches by movement, ducking, and blocking. Except for the sixth round knockdown, Corbett does not hit him that much. His slippage of a Corbett jab and shift to the body is classic. He does not show much combination punching on the limited film we have, but Gilbert Odd's descriptions of his fights report "volleys" of punches and combinations which move from head to body and back. Without film, who can be certain, but I would say there is historical evidence he did use combinations. He had to track down Corbett and never trapped him to really unload.
I would disagree as well that "Fitz does not show defensive skill", but I would assert (again) that Fitz does not show much defensive skill. Doesn't mean he didn't have it, but I like to see it before drawing conclusions.

3. On battleships--Neither biological evolution nor technological progress are worth diddly-squat as analogies to boxing. Certain complex learned skills, such as juggling, piano playing, typing, dancing, etc. are much closer in my view. We both apparently agree that such skills do not necessarily improve generation to generation. Does Fitz have all modern skills? You must remember we are seeing him in footage from a fight which I believe was to a finish. He had to preserve energy. I can understand why he and Corbett did not want to engage in much tiring in-close mauling, and why they did not throw a great many "punches in bunches" at the risk of needlessly expending energy. Corbett does throw a series of combinations when he had Fitz hurt in the sixth.
You seem to be a literalist. Literalists are not prone to enjoy analogies which are by definition only loose comparisons showing similarity between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

I too can understand why both fighters wanted to fight conservatively. It makes sense... but it also lends credence to the view asserted here that we are essentially comparing apples and oranges. I'd be the first to concede that Duran would not win a fight to the finish under archaic rules.

4. I agree with you that boxing did progress in knowledge and technique, especially over the first half of the 20th century. It went from an outlawed sport to one popular in many areas of the globe. However, there is a limit to how far superior knowledge and technique can carry you, or Archie Moore would have beaten Marciano and Patterson. Fitz was a natural 167 lber and in superb shape at that weight. Duran peaked at 135, was good at 147, and so-so above that weight. No one said anywhere that Fitz has to fight under his best weight in this fight. Fitz looks better than any other pioneer on film to me. Observers of his time, such as Hype Igoe, and opponents such as Jack Johnson, praised him as the hardest puncher they had seen or faced. Igoe consided him a more dangerous puncher than Dempsey.
If you agree that boxing did progress in knowledge and technique then the rest of this is really incidentals. I am not adamant that Duran would beat Fitz anyway, but have always looked at "level of skill" first, though never exclusively, in making predictions. Size, age, resume, athleticism, intangibles, etc also must be duly considered.

[Stonehands89]

1. Why didn't Foster's trainer break him of this bad habit? Why didn't Hearns' trainer?
I think that you may be torturing logic here. Perhaps they tried. Perhaps Foster was stubborn, or simply was more comfortable fighting like that. Just because Foster's trainer didn't break him of his bad habits doesn't mean that Foster didn't have bad habits.

2. "There are health risks in the ring"

Fitz knew that. He killed two men in the ring.
According to the NY Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring. Fitz himself said that Con drank a 1/2 whiskey before getting in the ring to "spar" and that Fitz had merely slapped him with the back of the glove. I believe the ref said the same thing -that it was a nothing shot. Riordan died because he was dissipated. Official cause was given as apoplexy.... Just details I found interesting.

3. Are four ounce gloves purely a benefit? Gilbert Odd reports that Fitz said he went to the body if possible to spare his hands the damage of head punching. With modern gloves, Fitz might be even more dangerous as he could unload to the head without paying the price of damaged hands.
4 ounce gloves make for a different approach and potentially a different result.

However, it can be expected to be easier to stop or hurt a man with your fists than with pillows.

4. "I cannot bring myself to equate his opposition then to what it would have been later."

Perhaps, but no one since has been undisputed champion at middle, lightheavy, and heavy, so he dominated his opposition more than any of his successors could.
Again, details can be telling and either heighten the glory or take the luster off. I can offer you details that make Fitz's achievement glow brighter and I hope that you can offer details about the same that diminish that glow.

5. "Barkley was far more skilled and dangerous than Corbett"

I don't see this at all. Corbett was taller, twenty-five pounds heavier, a world quicker on his feet, and a powerful enough puncher to knock out big heavyweights such as Sullivan. He had the stamina to fight 61 rounds with Peter Jackson where he certainly held his own. Barkley would probably look like he was rooted in one spot if he fought Corbett. I don't see the Barkley who fought Duran as having any realistic chance against the Corbett who fought Fitz.

You are here saying that an average modern middleweight champion could defeat an outstanding heavyweight champion of a previous era. That is taking your "progress" ideology a long way.

I see much more talent in Corbett than you do. I am not alone. This is Gene Tunney after sparring with the 59 year old Corbett in 1925. "I honestly think he's better than Benny Leonard. It was the greatest thing I've ever seen."
Pictures of the sparring, by the way, show that Corbett was considerably taller and rangier than Tunney.

I wouldn't call my reminding the nostalgic posters about the value of progress an "ideology", but you are right about my low opinion of Corbett. I just do not appreciate his style other than what it is due for pointing towards Ali and the movers. He looks silly to me.

For the life of me, I can't get by this:

2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related

... yes, I know that they are only sparring but he doesn't look that much better in my eyes on the fight films...

6. No one is trying to make something impressive of Fitz's minor fights. Even if these men had 40-5 type records, they were not world class. I am content that Fitz be judged on his fights with Dempsey, Hall, Creedan, Maher, Choynski, Sharkey, Corbett, Ruhlin, Jeffries, and Gardner. I also don't think it valid to make a big negative deal of the fact that the records of many of Fitz's lesser opponents have been lost to history.

Again:

I don't want to overstate that argument because all fighters have fluff on their records -as late as 1986 Duran fought some can who was making his pro debut (Suero?)

[Sweet Pea]

For the life of me, I can't get by this:
2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related

:rofl

[janitor]

If there was footage then I'd be more sure. Or less sure.

There are three camps in this ongoing debate:

The first camp holds that pioneers did possess skills that could be considered little different than modern skills and would compete on even terms with modern boxers.

The second cannot get by Corbett's butt cheeks in the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film and generally disdain their style of fighting.

The third believes that the pioneers should be revered and even ranked in p4p lists, but with caution due to the plain fact that we are forced to rely on reports and scant film and also because boxing was essentially a different sport then.

* If you are looking at 25 rounds, you will fight differently than if you are looking 15 rounds.

* If you are competing with 4 ounce gloves you will fight differently than if you are competing with 8 ounce gloves.

* If there is no neutral corner rule, the fight can be totally different.

* If boxing is fought underground due to its being an outlawed sport in a given state, it will be murkier and seedier.

* Finally, newspaper decisions also must be taken with a grain of salt.

These are just a few of the differences.

I'm in the third camp; but invite those in the first or second to outline their arguments differently if they take issue with how I've done it.

When it comes to the H2H, I believe that those in the first camp rely to much on assumptions and at times go into contortions to support the pioneer's ability to compete. [/size][/font]

I will make a few observations.

1. Styles were more fluid in Fitzsimmons time.

While the four categories that we recognise today were present there were a lot of fighters whose styles were miscelaneous.

Fitzsimmons was a miscelaneous.

2. A fighter could be British champion and have a record of 0-0-0 in Fitzsimmons era. Con Coughlin is known mainly for being killed by Bob Fitzsimmons and has a record of 0-5-0 on boxrec. He seems to have been at least a fringe contender.

3. Fitzsimmons was unique in a few key respects.

[Stonehands89]

I will make a few observations.

1. Styles were more fluid in Fitzsimmons time.

While the four categories that we recognise today were present there were a lot of fighters whose styles were miscelaneous.

Fitzsimmons was a miscelaneous.

2. A fighter could be British champion and have a record of 0-0-0 in Fitzsimmons era. Con Coughlin is known mainly for being killed by Bob Fitzsimmons and has a record of 0-5-0 on boxrec. He seems to have been at least a fringe contender.

3. Fitzsimmons was unique in a few key respects.
Sounds fair to me.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think that you may be torturing logic here. Perhaps they tried. Perhaps Foster was stubborn, or simply was more comfortable fighting like that. Just because Foster's trainer didn't break him of his bad habits doesn't mean that Foster didn't have bad habits.


According to the NY Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring. Fitz himself said that Con drank a 1/2 whiskey before getting in the ring to "spar" and that Fitz had merely slapped him with the back of the glove. I believe the ref said the same thing -that it was a nothing shot. Riordan died because he was dissipated. Official cause was given as apoplexy.... Just details I found interesting.


4 ounce gloves make for a different approach and potentially a different result.

However, it can be expected to be easier to stop or hurt a man with your fists than with pillows.


Again, details can be telling and either heighten the glory or take the luster off. I can offer you details that make Fitz's achievement glow brighter and I hope that you can offer details about the same that diminish that glow.


I wouldn't call my reminding the nostalgic posters about the value of progress an "ideology", but you are right about my low opinion of Corbett. I just do not appreciate his style other than what it is due for pointing towards Ali and the movers. He looks silly to me.

For the life of me, I can't get by this:

2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related

... yes, I know that they are only sparring but he doesn't look that much better in my eyes on the fight films...



Again:

Make what you want of that, just like you could make something out of a film of Marciano "fighting" Jerry Lewis or Ali being "Knocked out" by a five year old child or Dempsey "taking the count" against Charlie Chaplin. Those are also on film. Your case would have more weight if you stuck to what you see in the Fitz fight, which I think is the only film of Corbett in a serious fight.

[guilalah]

"Is the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff?"


Oh, Old Fogey, you just put your finger upon my heart!


Tchaikovsky 'Troika', from The Seasons
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Henselt Etude 'If I Were a Bird'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn 'Spinning Song'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn Etude Etude Op 104b #3
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn Etude Op 104 #2
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rachmaninoff 'Oriental Sketch'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Schuman 'Carnaval'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tchaikovsky 'Lullaby'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Beethoven-Rubinstein Turkish March
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Schumann-Tausig 'Der Kontranandiste'
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Grieg Sonata - mvt I
(w/Fritz Kreisler)
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chopin-Liszt 'The Maiden's Wish'
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Chopin Sonata in b-flat
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rachmaninoff Melodie in E
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Chopin Waltz Op 64, #2 in c#
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Schubert Impromptu in A-flat Op 90, #4
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[OLD FOGEY]

"Is the best modern pianist automatically better than Rachmaninoff?"


Oh, Old Fogey, you just put your finger upon my heart!


Tchaikovsky 'Troika', from The Seasons
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Henselt Etude 'If I Were a Bird'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn 'Spinning Song'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn Etude Etude Op 104b #3
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mendelssohn Etude Op 104 #2
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rachmaninoff 'Oriental Sketch'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Schuman 'Carnaval'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tchaikovsky 'Lullaby'
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Beethoven-Rubinstein Turkish March
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Schumann-Tausig 'Der Kontranandiste'
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Grieg Sonata - mvt I
(w/Fritz Kreisler)
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Chopin-Liszt 'The Maiden's Wish'
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Chopin Sonata in b-flat
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rachmaninoff Melodie in E
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Chopin Waltz Op 64, #2 in c#
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Schubert Impromptu in A-flat Op 90, #4
[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

Thank you very much. Wonderful playing.

[dpw417]

Duran was fantastically subtle at doing all of this in an aggressive manner, but physically, is so much more slight than Fitzsimmons. Not so much in size, but in strength.

Your point is valid here...regarding strength. Duran being the naturally smaller man, would not possess the strength of the larger man, Fitzsimmons.


Fitzsimmons was more of a killer at Middleweight than Duran was at Lightweight in terms of pure potency. Where does this realistically leave Duran?

Fitzsimmons is Bob Foster with superior two-handed punching and a Heavyweight chin. Everyone who fought Fitzsimmons got hit, one way or another, and he had a tendency to destroy the iron men of his era.


Fitz did indeed hit everyone he fought with devastating effect. His record backs this up totally.






Fitzsimmons did not come at you like Dempsey, nobody did, but he cornered you with speed and threw hooks to the head and body with deceptive precision and power.

Duran is Duran, there was nobody else like him, but Fitzsimmons fought a huge variety of fighters; stronger, more powerful and tougher fighters than Duran, who he demolished. Maher and Sharkey were real game bangers; Choynski was a sharp-shooting puncher, Corbett a gliding boxer


I used the analogy of Fitz attemting to fight from the front foot in an effort to reach a smaller very mobile opponent. Fitz's stance looks very erect and squared. If he fights predominently with the weight distributed on the back foot, and using the principles of bodyweight punching to step forward into the blows...It seems to me from a stylistic point, reaching Duran... would be very perplexing to Fitz. The reson for this statement is Duran is brilliant at pivoting and countering against an on rushing opponent...Remember the build up to Hagler/Duran? Hagler had annilated his previous title challengers..Scypion,Sibson,Hamsho etc....the same was predicted for Duran. Why didn't it pan out that way? Duran used angles and countered against an opponent with an with reach advantage...I'm not saying Duran won that fight, he lost clearly. But the reasons Duran was able to have success against Hagler was because of defensive fluidity, handspeed (being the smaller man, he was used to reacting and countering faster than Hagler was...those right hand counters Duran used were coming faster than from his previous challengers, up to that time), and a skillset that had been forged from the boxing minds of Arcel and Brown. I'm not saying that Fitz won't land on Duran, he will eventually...But give me this......If Fitz does not employ a left jab to either establish distance for his blows, or to distract Duran while firing off a combination...and it appears he does not use a left jab frequently. If you come into a foe as well schooled as Duran throwing power punches from a semi-squared stance, without initating a jab(?) If you go to the head, either leading with a right hand, or a lead left hook, you would find Duran going underneath with hard combiantions to the body, then pivoting. If you go to the body, with strictly power punches, those would leave you open to telling counters upstairs. Without ultizing a left jab...
While Maher, Sharkey, Choynski, and Corbett may have been tougher and stronger. IMO opinion none possessed near the ability to react and counter than a middleweight version of Duran.

Ted Spoon will project all the good that could be possibly said of Duran, but Fitzsimmons is again getting sold more than a bit short here.

Selling Fitz short is not my intention at all. I'm approaching this with an open mind and exchanging ideas is all.

He would not be at a loss with anyone. The man was a killer, a scientific war horse with cannons for fists. Duran's ability would not skirt past this kind of danger. He may be able to hustle with Barkley, but Fitzsimmons...

Duran would have to skirt past Fitz to beat him...he can't do it head to head, like most of Fitz's opponents attempted to do...I feel Duran would present a very difficult puzzle to solve.


No fighter whose natural weight is below Fitzsimmons beats him.

This is interesting and it is shared by Robert Edgren an old time boxing writer would had seen all the greats like Walker,Greb Ketchel, Ryan, etc. He stated it just wasn't fair to compare any middleweight with Fitz.(From the Mike Casey article)
A question...In your view has anyone reached the level of a Fitzsimmons at or around the middleweight limit? If not...that is a huge statement!
Cheers, Ted Spoon!

[Russell]

So what's the consenus?

Is Fitz just too primitive and unschooled to beat a modern day honed to perfection great like Duran?

[OLD FOGEY]

I think that you may be torturing logic here. Perhaps they tried. Perhaps Foster was stubborn, or simply was more comfortable fighting like that. Just because Foster's trainer didn't break him of his bad habits doesn't mean that Foster didn't have bad habits.


According to the NY Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring. Fitz himself said that Con drank a 1/2 whiskey before getting in the ring to "spar" and that Fitz had merely slapped him with the back of the glove. I believe the ref said the same thing -that it was a nothing shot. Riordan died because he was dissipated. Official cause was given as apoplexy.... Just details I found interesting.


4 ounce gloves make for a different approach and potentially a different result.

However, it can be expected to be easier to stop or hurt a man with your fists than with pillows.


Again, details can be telling and either heighten the glory or take the luster off. I can offer you details that make Fitz's achievement glow brighter and I hope that you can offer details about the same that diminish that glow.


I wouldn't call my reminding the nostalgic posters about the value of progress an "ideology", but you are right about my low opinion of Corbett. I just do not appreciate his style other than what it is due for pointing towards Ali and the movers. He looks silly to me.

For the life of me, I can't get by this:

2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related

... yes, I know that they are only sparring but he doesn't look that much better in my eyes on the fight films...



Again:

"According to the New York Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring"

"Fitz himself said that Con drank whiskey before getting into the ring"

Well, Fitz actually denied he knew Riordan was drunk. This was a crucial point, as he was charged with manslaughter and if Riordan was incapacitated by booze, he might be reasonably seen as guilty. Some witnesses claimed Riordan had been drinking.

As to what killed Riordan, that is no mystery.

New York Times, June 28, 1895 reporting on testimony at the Fitz trial for manslaughter:

"In the trial of Robert Fitzsimmons for the death of 'Con' Reardan, the assertion was made today on the witness stand that the direct cause of death was 'concentrated violence, delivered externally'. The expert who so testified is Dr F W Tolman, Police Surgeon, of this city who was called to attend Riordan.
"Fitzsimmons told the doctor on the night of the fatal blow that he feinted with one hand and hit Riordan on the jaw and neck with the other. Dr Tolman said that he found Riordan's body in good physical condition. One clot of blood had been found in the brain which weighed 4 1/3 ounces. The clot showed conclusively that there had been a rupture. Also around the entire base of the skull was a continuous chain of separate blood clots. There was no diseased condition of Riordan's brain. There was also a laceration or fracture of a portion of the brain made up of longitudinal brain fibers. The cause of death was blood clots upon the brain and rupture of the tissues. In the expert's opinion, the blow upon the jaw caused the blood clots and rupture."

That is from the physician who did the autopsy.

The original story the day after the fight gives similar evidence:

"Dr David M Totman, one of the most prominent surgeons in the city, said that all the symptoms pointed to a hemorrhage in the meniges, or covering of the brain. One thing that deeply impressed him was that Riordan's pupils would not contract, even under a strong light and this fact proved brain disturbance of a very serious character."

The cause of death was a brain hemorrhage caused by Fitz's blow regardless of whether anyone thought it was a hard punch or not.

The real issue here is whether Riordan was actually drunk. Who knows. Some testified he was drinking, but others didn't notice anything. Gilbert Odd's version of the fight has Riordan landing a hard right to Fitz's ear which aroused Fitz to put him away with a vicious left to the body and a right to the jaw.

The jury acquitted Fitz in July 1895 which seems to indicate to me they did not take the drinking testimony that seriously.

[Stonehands89]

"According to the New York Times, Con Riordan was drunk in the ring"

"Fitz himself said that Con drank whiskey before getting into the ring"

Well, Fitz actually denied he knew Riordan was drunk. This was a crucial point, as he was charged with manslaughter and if Riordan was incapacitated by booze, he might be reasonably seen as guilty. Some witnesses claimed Riordan had been drinking.

Yank Sullivan, who I believe was the ref claimed that he saw Riordan down a half pint of whiskey before the round, not Fitz. Fitz knew that Con was a "hard drinker" and had been drinking as usual the night before, and also swore that he hit him very lightly. I think it is fairly safe to say that he knew Con was an alcoholic and probably drunk. According to the first doc on the scene, all of the witnesses said the shot was light. The manager of the company claimed that Con had asked Fitz not to hit him in the stomach and so Bob tapped him on the head, but no harder than a "10 year old child would."

As to what killed Riordan, that is no mystery.

New York Times, June 28, 1895 reporting on testimony at the Fitz trial for manslaughter:

"In the trial of Robert Fitzsimmons for the death of 'Con' Reardan, the assertion was made today on the witness stand that the direct cause of death was 'concentrated violence, delivered externally'. The expert who so testified is Dr F W Tolman, Police Surgeon, of this city who was called to attend Riordan.
"Fitzsimmons told the doctor on the night of the fatal blow that he feinted with one hand and hit Riordan on the jaw and neck with the other. Dr Tolman said that he found Riordan's body in good physical condition. One clot of blood had been found in the brain which weighed 4 1/3 ounces. The clot showed conclusively that there had been a rupture. Also around the entire base of the skull was a continuous chain of separate blood clots. There was no diseased condition of Riordan's brain. There was also a laceration or fracture of a portion of the brain made up of longitudinal brain fibers. The cause of death was blood clots upon the brain and rupture of the tissues. In the expert's opinion, the blow upon the jaw caused the blood clots and rupture."

That is from the physician who did the autopsy.

The original story the day after the fight gives similar evidence:

"Dr David M Totman, one of the most prominent surgeons in the city, said that all the symptoms pointed to a hemorrhage in the meniges, or covering of the brain. One thing that deeply impressed him was that Riordan's pupils would not contract, even under a strong light and this fact proved brain disturbance of a very serious charactor."

The cause of death was a brain hemorrhage caused by Fitz's blow regardless of whether anyone thought it was a hard punch or not.

The real issue here is whether Riordan was actually drunk. Who knows. Some testified he was drinking, but others didn't notice anything. Gilbert Odd's version of the fight has Riordan landing a hard right to Fitz's ear which aroused Fitz to put him away with a vicious left to the body and a right to the jaw.

The jury acquitted Fitz in July 1895 which seems to indicate to me they did not take the drinking testimony that seriously.
I think it's pretty clear that Con was either drunk or hung over enough to show the same effects. Either way, it is a shame that it happened because it wasn't a bout, it was an exhibition. Fitz had been punching the bag just before the fatal round and said himself that he does not try to hurt sparring partners.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yank Sullivan, who I believe was the ref claimed that he saw Riordan down a half pint of whiskey before the round, not Fitz. Fitz knew that Con was a "hard drinker" and had been drinking as usual the night before, and also swore that he hit him very lightly. I think it is fairly safe to say that he knew Con was an alcoholic and probably drunk. According to the first doc on the scene, all of the witnesses said the shot was light. The manager of the company claimed that Con had asked Fitz not to hit him in the stomach and so Bob tapped him on the head, but no harder than a "10 year old child would."


I think it's pretty clear that Con was either drunk or hung over enough to show the same effects. Either way, it is a shame that it happened because it wasn't a bout, it was an exhibition. Fitz had been punching the bag just before the fatal round and said himself that he does not try to hurt sparring partners.

All this brain damage wasn't caused by alcohol. It was trauma. Observers, and Fitz himself, might have tried to downplay the force of the blow when it became obvious that Riordan was badly, and perhaps even fatally, hurt.

[Stonehands89]

All this brain damage wasn't caused by alcohol. It was trauma. Observers, and Fitz himself, might have tried to downplay the force of the blow when it became obvious that Riordan was badly, and perhaps even fatally, hurt.
No, I'm not saying it was caused by alcohol. I'm saying that it's a shame that Fitz popped off a fatal shot during an exhibition. I'm not sure he meant to throw a hard shot -and hope that he didn't, especially given what I believe was Riordan's condition.

In the courtroom, Fitz said that he would not have killed Riordan for $100,000 and then "broke down and cried."

[Ted Spoon]

If there was footage then I'd be more sure. Or less sure.
Alas, it is not a closed book and Robinson's universal position as #1 P4P fighter in history is not set in concrete.

There are three camps in this ongoing debate:

The first camp holds that pioneers did possess skills that could be considered little different than modern skills and would compete on even terms with modern boxers.

The second cannot get by Corbett's butt cheeks in the Fitzsimmons-Corbett film and generally disdain their style of fighting.

The third believes that the pioneers should be revered and even ranked in p4p lists, but with caution due to the plain fact that we are forced to rely on reports and scant film and also because boxing was essentially a different sport then.

* If you are looking at 25 rounds, you will fight differently than if you are looking 15 rounds.

* If you are competing with 4 ounce gloves you will fight differently than if you are competing with 8 ounce gloves.

* If there is no neutral corner rule, the fight can be totally different.

* If boxing is fought underground due to its being an outlawed sport in a given state, it will be murkier and seedier.

* Finally, newspaper decisions also must be taken with a grain of salt.

These are just a few of the differences.

I'm in the third camp; but invite those in the first or second to outline their arguments differently if they take issue with how I've done it.

When it comes to the H2H, I believe that those in the first camp rely to much on assumptions and at times go into contortions to support the pioneer's ability to compete. [/size][/font]
That's a fair observation, but by the same virtue the vast majority believe a little pace, pivot and combination would have Fitzsimmons muddled beyond belief...

...You're one of the few considerate fans, but consider these points:

Many fans lost all faith in boxing when the MQR set took over.

There were those who were born with, brought up on and later swore down on the effectiveness of the back sword, cudgel, wrestling and other sporting techniques that later inspired the developing art of pugilism.

Now while they where indeed from a different time neither Ted Spoon or anyone else can comfortably fathom how effective and successful that very early style of boxing would translate into the modern era.

Drawing parallels with other sports is usually the measure for others to disregard past times, but boxing is so very different.

Moreover, the deeper you dig into the past, the greater the appreciation.

-Jem Belcher turned the Bare Knuckle iron man contests into shootouts- taking out his man in a matter of minutes- the equivalent of a 1st round knockout today, and 3rd/4th round knockouts, in real time.

-Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson and Stanley Ketchel fought at torrid paces; very high output fights.

-Joe Gans was impeccable at keeping his distance and choosing his spots. When the rushing Nelson fought him he was side stepped and continually punished.

Perhaps these men were simple exceptions, but it's unlikely. They were, ultimately, a product of their era. It's like saying Corbett invented the left hook; whoever said that?

History likes to point the finger to make sense of things (like the LPR/MQR transition), but Sullivan was not whipped by Corbett as much as he was by the whiskey.

Today, the difference in regulations and equipment is clear, not the compatibility of an older science.

[Ted Spoon]

This is interesting and it is shared by Robert Edgren an old time boxing writer would had seen all the greats like Walker,Greb Ketchel, Ryan, etc. He stated it just wasn't fair to compare any middleweight with Fitz.(From the Mike Casey article)
A question...In your view has anyone reached the level of a Fitzsimmons at or around the middleweight limit? If not...that is a huge statement!
Cheers, Ted Spoon!

Saying it's 'not fair' is going overboard, but Fitzsimmons was the scariest figure ever to grace the 160lbs division for Ted Spoons money - lanky, deceptive and brutal.

Fitzsimmons was probably the most explosive middleweight there has been; so many accounts of him finishing matters with one punch, but there are many other who were equally potent operators:

Ketchel, Greb, Cerdan, Monzon, Jones, and Hopkins.

[Russell]

How about Maher, Spoon?

Wasn't he seen as or nearly as devestating as Fitz?

[Ted Spoon]

Matt Donnellon will tell you better than anyone, but Maher was as devastating as could be; your pre-Shavers, in terms of power, he just did not have the delivery of Fitzsimmons to make it as effective.

[Stonehands89]

Alas, it is not a closed book and Robinson's universal position as #1 P4P fighter in history is not set in concrete.

That's a fair observation, but by the same virtue the vast majority believe a little pace, pivot and combination would have Fitzsimmons muddled beyond belief...

...You're one of the few considerate fans, but consider these points:

Many fans lost all faith in boxing when the MQR set took over.

There were those who were born with, brought up on and later swore down on the effectiveness of the back sword, cudgel, wrestling and other sporting techniques that later inspired the developing art of pugilism.

Now while they where indeed from a different time neither Ted Spoon or anyone else can comfortably fathom how effective and successful that very early style of boxing would translate into the modern era.

Drawing parallels with other sports is usually the measure for others to disregard past times, but boxing is so very different.

Moreover, the deeper you dig into the past, the greater the appreciation.

-Jem Belcher turned the Bare Knuckle iron man contests into shootouts- taking out his man in a matter of minutes- the equivalent of a 1st round knockout today, and 3rd/4th round knockouts, in real time.

-Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson and Stanley Ketchel fought at torrid paces; very high output fights.

-Joe Gans was impeccable at keeping his distance and choosing his spots. When the rushing Nelson fought him he was side stepped and continually punished.

Perhaps these men were simple exceptions, but it's unlikely. They were, ultimately, a product of their era. It's like saying Corbett invented the left hook; whoever said that?

History likes to point the finger to make sense of things (like the LPR/MQR transition), but Sullivan was not whipped by Corbett much as he was by the whiskey.

Today, the difference in regulations and equipment is clear, not the compatibility of an older science.

... Agreed. The viability of pioneers' style in the modern ring is an open question. I cannot be certain of their defeat under the blows of the modern technician and no one can. I look at it as a matter of probability alone and actually only insert myself into these types of debates when the opposite conclusion is casually reached.

A note on the rxn to MQR. The discontent among fighters, at least, was probably near-unanimous and why wouldn't it be? It's human nature for the old to become reactionary against the new. New cars over here are now equipped with an annoying beeping from the dashboard that continues until you put your seatbelt on. I hate it and yearn for the days when you could drive in peace and without the computerized harassment of do-gooders...!

Gunboat Smith on modern gloves and the ban on insulation tape (!):
"I don't get it at all. There's something radically wrong someplace. In those days, you got hit, you got hurt, you learned fast..."

[dpw417]

... Agreed. The viability of pioneers' style in the modern ring is an open question. I cannot be certain of their defeat under the blows of the modern technician and no one can. I look at it as a matter of probability alone and actually only insert myself into these types of debates when the opposite conclusion is casually reached.
A note on the rxn to MQR. The discontent among fighters, at least, was probably near-unanimous and why wouldn't it be? It's human nature for the old to become reactionary against the new. New cars over here are now equipped with an annoying beeping from the dashboard that continues until you put your seatbelt on. I hate it and yearn for the days when you could drive in peace and without the computerized harassment of do-gooders...!

Gunboat Smith on modern gloves and the ban on insulation tape (!):
"I don't get it at all. There's something radically wrong someplace. In those days, you got hit, you got hurt, you learned fast..."
Could not agree more with this statement re this thread. While attempting to break down a hypothetical involving two styles as far removed from each other as Fitz and Duran, is akin to a dog chasing it's own tail...but it's fun anyway!

[dpw417]

Alas, it is not a closed book and Robinson's universal position as #1 P4P fighter in history is not set in concrete.



That's a fair observation, but by the same virtue the vast majority believe a little pace, pivot and combination would have Fitzsimmons muddled beyond belief...

...You're one of the few considerate fans, but consider these points:

Many fans lost all faith in boxing when the MQR set took over.

There were those who were born with, brought up on and later swore down on the effectiveness of the back sword, cudgel, wrestling and other sporting techniques that later inspired the developing art of pugilism.

Now while they where indeed from a different time neither Ted Spoon or anyone else can comfortably fathom how effective and successful that very early style of boxing would translate into the modern era.

Drawing parallels with other sports is usually the measure for others to disregard past times, but boxing is so very different.

Moreover, the deeper you dig into the past, the greater the appreciation.

-Jem Belcher turned the Bare Knuckle iron man contests into shootouts- taking out his man in a matter of minutes- the equivalent of a 1st round knockout today, and 3rd/4th round knockouts, in real time.

-Ad Wolgast, Battling Nelson and Stanley Ketchel fought at torrid paces; very high output fights.

-Joe Gans was impeccable at keeping his distance and choosing his spots. When the rushing Nelson fought him he was side stepped and continually punished.

Perhaps these men were simple exceptions, but it's unlikely. They were, ultimately, a product of their era. It's like saying Corbett invented the left hook; whoever said that?

History likes to point the finger to make sense of things (like the LPR/MQR transition), but Sullivan was not whipped by Corbett as much as he was by the whiskey.

Today, the difference in regulations and equipment is clear, not the compatibility of an older science.

This statement may be pertaining to me, since I brought this up re a stylistic adjustment of pivoting and countering against an oncoming opponent. It's hard to say that Fitz would be 'muddled beyond belief', I don't really think so...given Fitz's penchant for being an innovative and thinking fighter... but I'll maintain that Duran would have employed this tactic, with success against just about anyone...Fitz included.

Duran (IMO) would have more versatility in which to draw from, his palate has a wider variety of tactics to use to adjust and to adapt. But the best Duran, at middleweight, did not win the fight against Hagler did he? He is given credit for 'staying in' and being competitive against a somewhat reluctant all time great middleweight. Duran fought an opponent in Hagler of similar stature, but with an eight inch reach advantage, and who was capable of very short destructive, twisting punches...Duran diffused much of this by fighting a smaller man's fight, his reactions were simply quicker than any of Hagler's previous opponents, hence Duran being able to evade most of Marvin's most damaging blows, with angles and economical movement, and Hagler (to his surprise) being hit with more straight right hands than he had ever before, up to that point...and YES, his (Duran's) use of angles and pivots against Hagler were evident.

Sometimes 'slickness' and 'cuteness' aren't enough to win a fight...Sometimes a 'dog eat dog' fight does break out, instead of a boxing match, and the bigger, stronger, tougher, and harder hitting man wins by simply walking through the other fighter by forcing the fight...No matter what the skill level is...Would Fitz do this against Duran? It's a possibility! I'm honestly not sure how Fitz's style would look against a modern, but I'm not close minded enough to discount what has been written about him by historians. Would he just bludgeon Duran into a KO or TKO? Hearns did it with speed, power and size along with an excellent left jab that just didn't distract, it moved Duran back lining him up for the devastation that followed in that fight in the form of his right hand. Fitz certainly has the power, but does he have the delivery, speed and timing of a modern great like a Hagler or a Hearns? It doen't look like Fitz employs a jab very frequently...in order to either distract, or initiate attacking combinations. As I stated earlier, if you... no matter who you are...Go straight at a opponent as experienced as a Roberto Duran, throwing power punches from both sides, you will be countered very hard in return...Due to the openings in your stance and your distance...Would that matter to Fitz? Or would he just mow Duran down?

The relative point is that given Duran's performance against a fighter of Hagler's standing, and his subsquent winning effort against Barkley, Duran would acquit himself well in this contest. I think the best version of Duran at middleweight would provide competition to any middleweight...this he has proven.

Why have the old traits of adhearing to, and committing to, the principles of bodyweight punching disappeared ??? Is it because boxing has evolved to the state where the objective is to outpoint, placing the emphasis on speed, reflexes, and athleticism and not forcing the committment needed to fight in a way the old timers did by emphasizing more damaging tactics?

Or were the old timers more damaging with their offensive capabilities at all? Has boxing evolved to a superior form of fighting or is it just different from the old style?

[Stonehands89]

Matt Donnellon will tell you better than anyone, but Maher was as devastating as could be; your pre-Shavers, in terms of power, he just did not have the delivery of Fitzsimmons to make it as effective.
"The Irishman" trained right near me at Revere Beach in Massachusetts before fighting an aging George Godfrey in 1894... That bout ended with a combination by Maher that succeeded in "dislodging several of Godfrey's teeth."

Maher was stopped when still new to the game by The Black Prince himself and couldn't cope with Ruby...

[Ted Spoon]

This statement may be pertaining to me, since I brought this up re a stylistic adjustment of pivoting and countering against an oncoming opponent. It's hard to say that Fitz would be 'muddled beyond belief', I don't really think so...given Fitz's penchant for being an innovative and thinking fighter... but I'll maintain that Duran would have employed this tactic, with success against just about anyone...Fitz included.

Duran (IMO) would have more versatility in which to draw from, his palate has a wider variety of tactics to use to adjust and to adapt. But the best Duran, at middleweight, did not win the fight against Hagler did he? He is given credit for 'staying in' and being competitive against a somewhat reluctant all time great middleweight. Duran fought an opponent in Hagler of similar stature, but with an eight inch reach advantage, and who was capable of very short destructive, twisting punches...Duran diffused much of this by fighting a smaller man's fight, his reactions were simply quicker than any of Hagler's previous opponents, hence Duran being able to evade most of Marvin's most damaging blows, with angles and economical movement, and Hagler (to his surprise) being hit with more straight right hands than he had ever before, up to that point...and YES, his (Duran's) use of angles and pivots against Hagler were evident.

Sometimes 'slickness' and 'cuteness' aren't enough to win a fight...Sometimes a 'dog eat dog' fight does break out, instead of a boxing match, and the bigger, stronger, tougher, and harder hitting man wins by simply walking through the other fighter by forcing the fight...No matter what the skill level is...Would Fitz do this against Duran? It's a possibility! I'm honestly not sure how Fitz's style would look against a modern, but I'm not close minded enough to discount what has been written about him by historians. Would he just bludgeon Duran into a KO or TKO? Hearns did it with speed, power and size along with an excellent left jab that just didn't distract, it moved Duran back lining him up for the devastation that followed in that fight in the form of his right hand. Fitz certainly has the power, but does he have the delivery, speed and timing of a modern great like a Hagler or a Hearns? It doen't look like Fitz employs a jab very frequently...in order to either distract, or initiate attacking combinations. As I stated earlier, if you... no matter who you are...Go straight at a opponent as experienced as a Roberto Duran, throwing power punches from both sides, you will be countered very hard in return...Due to the openings in your stance and your distance...Would that matter to Fitz? Or would he just mow Duran down?

The relative point is that given Duran's performance against a fighter of Hagler's standing, and his subsquent winning effort against Barkley, Duran would acquit himself well in this contest. I think the best version of Duran at middleweight would provide competition to any middleweight...this he has proven.

Why have the old traits of adhearing to, and committing to, the principles of bodyweight punching disappeared ??? Is it because boxing has evolved to the state where the objective is to outpoint, placing the emphasis on speed, reflexes, and athleticism and not forcing the committment needed to fight in a way the old timers did by emphasizing more damaging tactics?

Or were the old timers more damaging with their offensive capabilities at all? Has boxing evolved to a superior form of fighting or is it just different from the old style?

Duran had the ability and experience to contend with many middleweights, but Fitzsimmons was powerful and tricky; powerful enough to take down heavyweights and tricky enough to feint slick fighters into knots.

As good as Hagler was he was not a tricky fighter. He did everything well, but his rhythm could be upset by a good mover like Duran. He worked off what Hagler gave him and manipulated much of it with a little move and a right cross.

Fitzsimmons was vaunted for being a counter-puncher and an attacker; he could do both. Duran could make it difficult with his tucked in posture and neat pivots, but he's going to end up playing to Fitzsimmons' tune when the latter decides to make it count.

To a large extent, yes, fighters nowadays are more geared towards outpointing their man. It use to be a fight to the finish, then it was 20 rounds, then 15, and now it is a fast-paced 12 with bigger gloves and strict referees.

Punching pressure points, which was Fitzsimmons' forte, is much harder to achieve with larger gloves. When Dempsey released his book 'championship fighting' in 1950, he made it a point to express the lack of training in 'correct punching', but he was talking about 30 years prior to the time when gloves were smaller again.

The rules changed boxing into a different breed of combat, not superior. Some things are done better, others worse.