Criminal rating - a case for Ruby Rob as the greatest of them all

2 quick caveats - firstly at middleweight, whilst secondly - using the azania rating system.

It is widely held that in Fitzsimmons' heyday, boxing was the most popular sport in the world. Yet he rose through the ranks to become the undisputed champion at 160, 175 and the richest prize of all at heavyweight. Yet he, himself found the idea he was any more than a MW ludicrous. Gene Tunney wrote, (1940), that Fitz always considered himself a middleweight, “Fitz, incidentally, was funny about his weight, for, after defeating Corbett, while alone in a Turkish bath with Jim Coffroth, he kept repeating, 'eavyweight champion of the world--and I’m only a bleeding middleweight.” Furthermore - when weighed before the Corbett fight on the morning, privately - he barely tipped the scale at more than 156 1/2. And yet, he still had the power and the ring smarts to be able to land that left to the body.

Has there ever been a harder p4p puncher? Maybe not. Gans and Wilde both packed a fair punch - and deserve considerable mention - but Bob could out hit most heavyweights. It is widely reported that he knocked out 7 men in one night - and that he accomplished this feat in less than 19 rounds. Furthermore - one of these apparently stood 6-7 weighing in at >240lbs. For a man of that size to be KOd by someone practically half his weight is phenomenal.

Unfortunately - much of his career is missing - which is a criminal shame - and perhaps that is why Bob gets a cursory mention in all p4p discussions. He doesn't have a long run of defences a la Hagler or Monzon - so I can't argue for him as MW#1 based on achievements at the weight. However - in head-to-heads - Fitzsimmons does very well indeed.

His defence was underrated. You don't survive with LHW and HW hitters like Choynski, Sharkey, Maher and Ruslin if you're getting caught clean and weighing in at only 160. As shown in one of his famous press cuttings - he had a habit of leaning back off opponents punches - such that they would fail to catch him hard and clean. Further - when caught - he was often able to survive. Choynski nearly had him out of there in their LHW battle - but Fitz was able to last the round and come back to beat the bigger man in the next round.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I include these 2 images as I note that "old timers" were referred to as fighting in an age where it was deemed unsporting to duck. 1 of these 2 fighters is reported as having an excellent defence. The other seems to be doing the same thing in an exhibition; just 100 years before.

As for hitting - he could pick his shots and land at will. Quick, straight and hard punching power. He had stamina to take people over 25 rounds - so no way that he struggles with modern pace. Courage, power, skill, ring smarts, defence - all in abundance and to the extent that whilst remaining a MW - none of this modern bulking up - he was, for a while, the best in the world at all weights over 160lbs.

Fleischer always thought of Fitz as the #3 AT heavy (ridiculous. If Corbett could put him down with a jab what would Lewis do. He was incredible - but he was only 160lbs. What would Martinez do if he fought a Klitschko? Outbox him for a few minutes before being stopped). Charley Rose thought of him as the ATG#1 LHW. I put forward that on head-to-heads - he's the ATG#1 MW - and a far too frequently forgotten fighter.

Who beats him at 160lbs - and how? Discuss.

One of them is fighting an aggressive Joe Frazier. The other it appears is doing it as a demonstration against someone wearing a suit. Please remove those images.

With the chins of Hagler and Greb I'd say they at least have a very good shout. Don't remember seeing Hagler hurt and Greb fought heavies and great Light Heavies.

Scottrf wrote:One of them is fighting an aggressive Joe Frazier. The other it appears is doing it as a demonstration against someone wearing a suit. Please remove those images.

With the chins of Hagler and Greb I'd say they at least have a very good shout. Don't remember seeing Hagler hurt and Greb fought heavies and great Light Heavies.

I apologise that I can't find footage of Bob leaning back to avoid Choynski's right cross. Its just in writing that he did. So the images stand.

Greb I can give a definite argument towards - workrate + chin gives him one hell of a chance. However - Hagler? Never fought for longer than 15 rounds, avoided the step up to fight spinks even though he weighed more than 175 on most fight nights and his best wins were over men stepping up from 147. What gives him the edge?

The fact that he can absorb punishment?

Can absorb punisment, fantastic boxer, can switch stance, good combination puncher, not a bad puncher and his workrate is too high.

Being able to absord punishment would be vital in beating Fitzsimmons as he had a knack of finding the killer punch eventually, it wasn't Jeffries boxing ability that earned him the win second time round but more his ability to keep marching forward through Bobs best punches, his face was a hideous mess from all accounts.

Don't think his workrate is high enough - nor do I reckon stance switching gives him much of an edge.

But its all opinions. For me - Fitzsimmons would do the cleaner, harder, better work. If a fat and past his best Duran could outbox Hagler over 12 - I'd back Fitzsimmons to do it over 15.

As far as absorbing punishment goes - we're talking about Jeffries - one of the most durable men in history. Hagler's durability doesn't match Jeffries - we're in danger of overrating his ability to absorb punishment here.

I think his workrate is high enough, Fitz threw one punch at a time seconds apart.

I think that era was technically inferior to how the sport developed later so Id be pretty skeptical of him against later top middleweights like Greb, Hagler, Monzon etc

Id say his power is always a serious weapon but in terms of technical ability Im not sure he has enough for the later top dogs in the division.

Im going to throw a wild card out there Oxy in the shape of Stanley Ketchel, at middleweight had a great chin but much like Fitz possessed heavyweight power, if he connects cleanly it could be good night.

Middleweights i'd have as favourites would be Monzon, Greb and Robinson, think that men like LaMotta, Burley and Charles stand a very very good chance too.

Monzon? Maybe. Could control the fight from distance with the left. Don't buy Robinson. As is always mentioned - his MW record is patchy. Perhaps I'm giving too much creedence to the opinions of men who saw Bob - but in head to heads - most of them seem to back Fitz over SRR.

As for Burley - I'm a huge Burley fan but I don't see it. Amazing technical ability especially in defence - but he could be outboxed by a stiff jab. Fitz had a wonderful left. As for Charles - maybe. Charles at 160 had freakish power - but he didn't stay at 160 for too long. For me, Fitzsimmons ring craft is good enough for him to edge Charles at 160 - although if they were to fight at 175, given that Fitzsimmons never actually bulked up, you'd have to give the edge to Charles. At 160, I'd still back Bob.

Nice shout in Ketchel. That would be one hell of a fight - don't blink. Both men had amazing powers of endurance and survival. I'd still lean to Fitzsimmons - but you could make an argument either way.

Not sure how Fitzsimmons copes if he can't hurt his opponent and the top men at middleweight all have one thing in common magnificent chins, would be interested to see how many times they were knocked out combined can only really think of 3 occassions it happened.

manos de piedra wrote:I think that era was technically inferior to how the sport developed later so Id be pretty skeptical of him against later top middleweights like Greb, Hagler, Monzon etc

Id say his power is always a serious weapon but in terms of technical ability Im not sure he has enough for the later top dogs in the division.

Got to agree on this obviously if Fitz can land he will create anyone problems but think it is widely accepted pre 1920's the sport stylistically was still making the transition from the bareknuckle era in which holding, grappling and throws were common place so to compare a guy like Fitz to guys like Monzon Hagler or even Greb is somewhat futile. Also would not read too much into the footage that remains, the filming was that primitive and haphazard and the regression in condition of much of the film that remains is so great they can almost be more hinderance than help in establishing a fighters ability.

Also would not infer too much from his apparent lack of workrate in bouts over 20 or 25 rounds is inevitable the workrate will be slower, is why Prizefighter fights tend to be pretty quick affairs nowadays.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure how Fitzsimmons copes if he can't hurt his opponent and the top men at middleweight all have one thing in common magnificent chins, would be interested to see how many times they were knocked out combined can only really think of 3 occassions it happened.

Very good point, it's hard to think of any Middleweight champions with shaky chins.

Who saw both Fitzsimmons and Robinson fight and backed Fitzsimmons to win out of curiosity?

rowley wrote:Also would not read too much into the footage that remains, the filming was that primitive and haphazard and the regression in condition of much of the film that remains is so great they can almost be more hinderance than help in establishing a fighters ability.

Also would not infer too much from his apparent lack of workrate in bouts over 20 or 25 rounds is inevitable the workrate will be slower, is why Prizefighter fights tend to be pretty quick affairs nowadays.

I think you can still tell things like how they hold their hands, how much they move, whether they punch in combinations. I wouldn’t judge speed, power, fluency or those sort of things from it though.

As for the last paragraph, right, would depend on the distance. But then we also shouldn't criticise a fighters stamina if their workrate was higher.

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure how Fitzsimmons copes if he can't hurt his opponent and the top men at middleweight all have one thing in common magnificent chins, would be interested to see how many times they were knocked out combined can only really think of 3 occassions it happened.

Very good point, it's hard to think of any Middleweight champions with shaky chins.

Monzon- Knocked down once
Hagler- One contentious knock down
Robinson- Only ever stopped once due to heat exhaustion up at 175lbs
Greb- Two early TKO stoppages
Burley- Never stopped
Ketchel- Stopped once at heavyweight by Johnson
LaMotta- Off his feet once at light heavyweight

Could be that Fitzsimmons hits harder than any of there opposition and he probably did but negate his most effective weapon and I see him being outboxed more than you would imagine.

rowley wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think that era was technically inferior to how the sport developed later so Id be pretty skeptical of him against later top middleweights like Greb, Hagler, Monzon etc

Id say his power is always a serious weapon but in terms of technical ability Im not sure he has enough for the later top dogs in the division.

Got to agree on this obviously if Fitz can land he will create anyone problems but think it is widely accepted pre 1920's the sport stylistically was still making the transition from the bareknuckle era in which holding, grappling and throws were common place so to compare a guy like Fitz to guys like Monzon Hagler or even Greb is somewhat futile. Also would not read too much into the footage that remains, the filming was that primitive and haphazard and the regression in condition of much of the film that remains is so great they can almost be more hinderance than help in establishing a fighters ability.

Also would not infer too much from his apparent lack of workrate in bouts over 20 or 25 rounds is inevitable the workrate will be slower, is why Prizefighter fights tend to be pretty quick affairs nowadays.

I sometimes wonder whether we aren't too dismissive of the skills of pre 1920s fighters. I accept that the sport was moving forward from its bareknuckle roots - however - there's evidence that the defence of fighters "back in the day" was better than the credit which we afford them.

For instance - glove size. Reports seldom mention Fitz or Johnson being cut to pieces. However - they were boxing with smaller gloves - which should do more damage to flesh, especially above the eyes. This has to mean that they're not being hit so often. 2 options - people aren't throwing punches at them - (footage and reports lead that to be clearly untrue) or they are defending, slipping and blocking punches such that they tend not to land clean.

Its not enough to say that if someone has a chin they beat someone. They've got to be able to throw and land punches as well. So pointing out that Ketchel and Hagler can absorb punishment doesn't mean they win. If absorbing punishment was all you needed then Mayorga would be an ATG.

I'd throw Hopkins into the mix aswell. Has the defence and footwork to stay away from Bob's power and the chin and durability to take the odd shot if needs be. With the above as well as his timing I see him outboxing Bob pretty handily but all a matter of staying away for the duration. The pace that they would fight at over 20 rounds would suit Hopkins.

The men I mentioned Oxy have the combination of both chin and ability to beat Fitzsimmons.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not sure how Fitzsimmons copes if he can't hurt his opponent and the top men at middleweight all have one thing in common magnificent chins, would be interested to see how many times they were knocked out combined can only really think of 3 occassions it happened.

Very good point, it's hard to think of any Middleweight champions with shaky chins.

Monzon- Knocked down once
Hagler- One contentious knock down
Robinson- Only ever stopped once due to heat exhaustion up at 175lbs
Greb- Two early TKO stoppages
Burley- Never stopped
Ketchel- Stopped once at heavyweight by Johnson
LaMotta- Off his feet once at light heavyweight

Could be that Fitzsimmons hits harder than any of there opposition and he probably did but negate his most effective weapon and I see him being outboxed more than you would imagine.

Thing is - its not as though he only had power. Most people talk first about his ring smarts and survival abilities and then mention his power. So its not as though all he does is walk forward and look to land a bingo punch.

As mentioned on the other thread, you've got to be pretty special to win the HW title from MW given its only been done twice in 150 years.

Further to that, however - no one else in history has won the LMW and HW title whilst weighing in at the MW limit at the time. That is unique. Which says wonders for all round boxing ability, surely.

PS - Burley is reported as struggling with Charles' power in their first contest - so how does he deal with Fitz's?

oxring wrote:Its not enough to say that if someone has a chin they beat someone. They've got to be able to throw and land punches as well. So pointing out that Ketchel and Hagler can absorb punishment doesn't mean they win. If absorbing punishment was all you needed then Mayorga would be an ATG.

You don’t think Hagler is just a chin do you?

Like some of the others I wouldn't necessarily have him down as favourite against Greb, Monzon and Hagler - all of whom had very good chins and all of whom are capable of out-boxing him. Ghosty has a point with Ketchel as well.

Also don't make him anymore than evens against Hopkins or RJJ.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Its not enough to say that if someone has a chin they beat someone. They've got to be able to throw and land punches as well. So pointing out that Ketchel and Hagler can absorb punishment doesn't mean they win. If absorbing punishment was all you needed then Mayorga would be an ATG.

You don’t think Hagler is just a chin do you?

That's not my point. The point is that the notion that all you have to do is be durable wins you the fight against Fitz is a mistake.

If you flick back along the thread you'll notice the point about how people talk about Fitz. To elaborate further - they don't speak of him just as a tremendous puncher - although that would surely be the first thing anyone would notice when beholding the man. They mention his ring craft, his feinting ability, his accuracy, his defences. And then his power.

So sure - Hagler isn't just a chin - but Fitz isn't just a hard punch.

Hearns was anything but a big right hand but take that out the equation and he starts to become very beatable and I think the same of Fitzsimmons.

Grebs workrate and aggression would be too much for him
Monzons I feel finds a way of beating any middleweight

Then the rest are all fairly even fights.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Its not enough to say that if someone has a chin they beat someone. They've got to be able to throw and land punches as well. So pointing out that Ketchel and Hagler can absorb punishment doesn't mean they win. If absorbing punishment was all you needed then Mayorga would be an ATG.

You don’t think Hagler is just a chin do you?

That's not my point. The point is that the notion that all you have to do is be durable wins you the fight against Fitz is a mistake.

If you flick back along the thread you'll notice the point about how people talk about Fitz. To elaborate further - they don't speak of him just as a tremendous puncher - although that would surely be the first thing anyone would notice when beholding the man. They mention his ring craft, his feinting ability, his accuracy, his defences. And then his power.
So sure - Hagler isn't just a chin - but Fitz isn't just a hard punch.

Right. But if you acknowledge that the era wasn't as developed, you must also acknowledge that these have to be taken with a pinch of salt as these guys are comparing him to what they've seen.

XXX from 1910 may have been the fastest the worlds ever seen, like lightning and every other adjective, but Bolt would smash him.

I dont think people are too dismissive of the early era fighters. I think they were a cruder breed but it has to viewed in context.

The sport was just crossing over from bareknuckle and London Prize Rules or even last man standing rules. Its unrealistic to think in just a couple of years the crossover to Marquis gloved fighting had been made.

It takes time for new styles, tactics, techniques and the general shift in emphasis to take place. For techniques to be discovered, developed, learned and passed on.

Id be very skeptical of the likes of Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Choynski and so on having the technical ability to match up with later fighters who have the benefit of decades of development and practices in the sport to avail of. I can see Fitzsimmons having the power to trouble any other middleweiht, or the durablity and stamina to front up but cant for the life of me see him manage to outbox a Robinson or a Charles or Hagler or a Hopkins in 12 or 15 round affairs.

I see these guys like Fitzsimmons and Jeffries and Corbett establishing greatness in their own era but its an era I think that is just not as technically advanced as those that came after.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Its not enough to say that if someone has a chin they beat someone. They've got to be able to throw and land punches as well. So pointing out that Ketchel and Hagler can absorb punishment doesn't mean they win. If absorbing punishment was all you needed then Mayorga would be an ATG.

You don’t think Hagler is just a chin do you?

That's not my point. The point is that the notion that all you have to do is be durable wins you the fight against Fitz is a mistake.

If you flick back along the thread you'll notice the point about how people talk about Fitz. To elaborate further - they don't speak of him just as a tremendous puncher - although that would surely be the first thing anyone would notice when beholding the man. They mention his ring craft, his feinting ability, his accuracy, his defences. And then his power.
So sure - Hagler isn't just a chin - but Fitz isn't just a hard punch.

Right. But if you acknowledge that the era wasn't as developed, you must also acknowledge that these have to be taken with a pinch of salt as these guys are comparing him to what they've seen.

XXX from 1910 may have been the fastest the worlds ever seen, like lightning and every other adjective, but Bolt would smash him.

As I've also mentioned - I'm not sure I buy the idea that the era was more crude/basic.

Stance for instance - most modern boxers use a centred stance - easier to get shots away but also allows a large target for shots to land. No-one fought like that then - the classic stance was off centre - more like Hopkins - presenting a smaller area to be hit.

Slipping shots with the open glove. No-one defends a shot with an open glove today - yet it was one of the most crucial techniques in those days - and it would still work today (in punchers gloves at least). I go back to my point about Fitz and Johnson and cuts. Cuts today are commonplace - but the gloves back then were smaller and should in theory cause more damage. It was the boxer's own skills that made them good enough to avoid being sliced to little pieces.

It isn't as though boxing was invented in 1870. The sport has been around since the dawn of time. Sure - the rules weren't codified until late in the 19th century and certainly, there was the changeover from bareknuckle to gloved style.

However - at times, we make too much of this switch and forget that the basics of defence, jab, stance and the hook have been there since the dawn of time. Fitz's left to the body that stopped Corbett was technical perfection - he wasn't the first man to invent a body attack by any means - nor was he the first to invent feinting to open up the opportunity to land the body shot. He didn't have a flash of inspiration half way through the fight. The basics have been there for years - and in some respects IMO - skills have regressed today.

Certainly, too much can be made of a putative "decline in boxing skills" - but to me, the lateral movement, footwork and technical punches of fighters today is not as good as the grainy film we see from 100 years ago.

It took Wlad years with Klitschko to expand beyond 3 punches - the jab, the right cross and the left hook. That said - he only started throwing uppercuts as though he meant it in the Chambers fight.

Rose (I think) reckoned that Fitz had the best left hook in history. Certainly - it would trouble anyone in history. As well as all the other punches.

So where were these old timers lacking?

I always hear this 'defensive techniques are lost' argument. No one slips shots etc.

Marquez used them all against Paquiao. No one even really thinks of his as a defensive fighter. Floyd catches punches. So does Hopkins, he did it to Pavlik multiple times. Gavin is a novice and slips punches with ease.

If they caught more punches it was because there were more single shots, you tie your hand up and leave yourself open to a follow up. Plenty of Graziano, LaMotta types who ate punches then too.

Where do they lack? Combination punching for one.

Well I cant agree. Even most of what I read about the times seem to accept it was cruder in general and still evolving.

I remember when UFC first emerged. It was all over the place. No weight classes, no formal rankings, very little skill levels with most fights just being crude slug fests between brawlers and toughmen. Gradually guys with martial arts and wrestling backgrounds got into it and began taking over and it became more mainstream. In the couple of decades since then the sport has changed beyond recognition. Weight classes, structure, rankings and technical ability on a whole other level.

I dont see boxing being as drastic as that but I think the principle is similar and there was a measure of transition and evolution.

It surprises me to see so many backing Greb to beat Fitz. Surely his swarming style, trading on his chin, is made for a brutish puncher such as Fitzsimmons.

I'm with Oxy on the debate of the ability of old timers. New doesn't equate to better. Given the task in front of them I don't see why pre 1920's fighters would go about their business in some illogical, skilless way. They too spent their training camps learning the right way to win the fight, they too were competing in a sport with a long, long history. There's no way a 156lb man can not only survive, but defeat a heavyweight of Corbett's quality without a great defense. The proof is in his results.

Really Scott?

Even Sullivan - the first of the gloved champions was known for being able to punch in combinations.

I think the idea that there were more single shots is a touch inaccurate for me. Reports of the time don't talk about single shots. Nor are the likes of Wilde and Greb hailed as geniuses simply because they knew how to throw a jab right cross and left hook one after another. (in the right order).
_______
As for Manos - well firstly - its not as boxing was born in 1870 so the UFC analogy doesn't entirely hold. Further - the skillset in UFC in some areas has regressed of late. I've got a reasonable background in Judo - and to me, some of the groundfighting isn't as good as it once was. Can't believe the ease with which Jones was able to choke Jackson, for instance - and Jackson is a recent champ. Jackson was wide open on the floor - and was nearly caught in the second as well.

So I'm not actually sold on the notion that more time=improvements.
_______

We've had nearly 200 years - why hasn't anyone come up with a symphony to match Beethoven's 9th (or the 3rd, 5th or 7th for that matter). Where was the other Mozart? And its been nearly 100 years since Puccini died - where are the superior follow-on operas?

Time doesn't always make for improvements.

oxring wrote:Really?

Even Sullivan - the first of the gloved champions was known for being able to punch in combinations.

I think the idea that there were more single shots is a touch inaccurate for me. Reports of the time don't talk about single shots. Nor are the likes of Wilde and Greb hailed as geniuses simply because they knew how to throw a jab right cross and left hook one after another. (in the right order).

Reports of the time? There's footage of a similar era. It may not be the best quality but you can tell when they're throwing punches and not.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:Really?

Even Sullivan - the first of the gloved champions was known for being able to punch in combinations.

I think the idea that there were more single shots is a touch inaccurate for me. Reports of the time don't talk about single shots. Nor are the likes of Wilde and Greb hailed as geniuses simply because they knew how to throw a jab right cross and left hook one after another. (in the right order).

Reports of the time? There's footage of a similar era. It may not be the best quality but you can tell when they're throwing punches and not.

Really? If you've some usable footage of John L Sullivan I'd love to see it. Surviving films of the time show jerkycam fighters that look more like semi-mobile puppets than boxers.

"similar era."

John Bloody Wayne wrote:It surprises me to see so many backing Greb to beat Fitz. Surely his swarming style, trading on his chin, is made for a brutish puncher such as Fitzsimmons.

I'm with Oxy on the debate of the ability of old timers. New doesn't equate to better. Given the task in front of them I don't see why pre 1920's fighters would go about their business in some illogical, skilless way. They too spent their training camps learning the right way to win the fight, they too were competing in a sport with a long, long history. There's no way a 156lb man can not only survive, but defeat a heavyweight of Corbett's quality without a great defense. The proof is in his results.

So how did the jab evolve for arguments sake? A staple of the game now which was almost non existant in the 1890s. How did the approach to dealing with the jab emerge and develop? Were these kind of things just done overnight?

It takes time to develop them, time to learn them, time to pass them on. When the rules of the sport change its only natural that other aspects change as a result and this takes time to come to terms with. The idea that Marquis Rules and gloved boxing takes over prominance yet fighters of that transitional era possess the same technique as decades later doesnt make sense to me.

Doesn't cut it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

Now even though it looks like a spitting image version of a HW title fight - you'll notice that Fitzsimmons rarely throws a single shots - tends to throw at least 3.

Incidentally - he never appears to be off balance after throwing 3 shots - which is a pretty good sign of a solid technique.

Don't by any stretch think the 1890's fighters are the best of all time but they've been given a reputation that doesn't fit the reality, Fitzsimmons would have a chance against any middleweight thanks largely to his ability to deliver his power. He wasn't a one punch knockout merchant but rather a fighter who would work his opponent for many rounds waiting for the perfect opportunity to deliver the knockout punch. He didn't just go looking for a big punch he made it happen.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't by any stretch think the 1890's fighters are the best of all time but they've been given a reputation that doesn't fit the reality, Fitzsimmons would have a chance against any middleweight thanks largely to his ability to deliver his power. He wasn't a one punch knockout merchant but rather a fighter who would work his opponent for many rounds waiting for the perfect opportunity to deliver the knockout punch. He didn't just go looking for a big punch he made it happen.

Agreed. All the argument is saying is that the astronomical power + ring smarts might make him a favourite against any middleweight. There are good arguments to say that Greb beats him, or that Monzon beats him. But the idea that durability alone is all you need is monstrous.

I'm interested to know when the skillset is thought to have drastically improved as there is a clear crossover between Fitzsimmons and the likes of Johnson and O'Brien?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm interested to know when the skillset is thought to have drastically improved as there is a clear crossover between Fitzsimmons and the likes of Johnson and O'Brien?

Its the main reason I don't buy the skillset argument. There's no "magic moment". No "click". Yet in the space of 10 years or so - between 1897 and 1912 - the sport is meant to have moved on to the likes of Greb, who could combination punch and didn't drink brandy between rounds.

10 years of evolution - you'd expect the dinosaurs to be beaten around the ring by this new breed with the modern skillset. But that doesn't happen - the old timers do well - mostly right up until they retire. Alternatively, you'd expect the magician who invented the new skillset to be lauded - but that doesn't happen either - who is he?

So we either say that the modern skillset doesn't evolve until Louis in the 20s and write out the 10s, or accept that more or less it was already there.

If it doesn't evolve until the 20s and Louis/Dempsey - then where did their trainers like Blackburn learn their skills.

We can keep playing this game up until we get decent fight footage where we can see the combinations and then say - there they are! Eureka! Combination punching was born. At least in the azania school of early 20th century boxing

Clearly - the thing old timers needed most was a HD box.

Heres some quotes from Jimmy Barry who fought in the 1800s and was highly regarded (as provided by an article from Human Windmill):

Said Barry: “The fighting game has been reduced to such a fine science that the clever man who hasn’t the bulldog strength to back up his efforts can do little or nothing these days. Formerly the rough fellows, that is those who depended mainly upon their strength and roughing abilities to win fights, knew little or nothing of the finer points. They used to swing away for all they were worth and eventually fall under the steady clipping and hammering a clever fellow would dole out.

“All that is changed now. These rough fellows have picked up the scientific part of the game. Take McGovern, for instance. There never was a rougher or stronger boy than the Brooklyn lad, yet in his own way, he is as clever or perhaps more clever than the majority of featherweights.

“And it’s the same with all other classes of fighters. Take George Lavigne. He was lightweight champion for years merely because he could outstay and out-slug all other lightweights.”

There are far too many instances of older fighters beating the newer breed for a sudden surge in talent to make sense to me.

Fitzsimmons beat O'Brien
O'Brien beat Blackburn
Blackburn held his own against the likes of Greb

So on and so on

Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

skidd1 wrote:Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

He weighed in at 1551/2 the morning of the Corbett fight.

He had the upper body of a HW with spindly little legs - strong enough to carry him and hold him but without excess flesh..

oxring wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

He weighed in at 1551/2 the morning of the Corbett fight.

He had the upper body of a HW with spindly little legs - strong enough to carry him and hold him but without excess flesh..

What source has him weighing in at that?

manos de piedra wrote:Heres some quotes from Jimmy Barry who fought in the 1800s and was highly regarded (as provided by an article from Human Windmill):

Said Barry: “The fighting game has been reduced to such a fine science that the clever man who hasn’t the bulldog strength to back up his efforts can do little or nothing these days. Formerly the rough fellows, that is those who depended mainly upon their strength and roughing abilities to win fights, knew little or nothing of the finer points. They used to swing away for all they were worth and eventually fall under the steady clipping and hammering a clever fellow would dole out.

“All that is changed now. These rough fellows have picked up the scientific part of the game. Take McGovern, for instance. There never was a rougher or stronger boy than the Brooklyn lad, yet in his own way, he is as clever or perhaps more clever than the majority of featherweights.

“And it’s the same with all other classes of fighters. Take George Lavigne. He was lightweight champion for years merely because he could outstay and out-slug all other lightweights.”

"The game of boxing is dying today because the boys do not know how to box. There is no one to teach them how and they won't work anyway".
LA Times, 1940

"As it is, the school of boxing is rapidly dying out, and when the professors of the present day have passed away it will be hard to say where the new ones are to come from."
Professor Ned Donelly, The art of boxing, 1879

Your point Manos?

People have said the same things since the dawn of time. Boxing is either dying in terms of skills or the new is better. Just because Barry said it, doesn't make it true.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

He weighed in at 1551/2 the morning of the Corbett fight.

He had the upper body of a HW with spindly little legs - strong enough to carry him and hold him but without excess flesh..

What source has him weighing in at that?

Manos, if you can bare with me will check the Pollack book when I get home and see if this is correct, I know for definite as I said on the other thread this was his weight in the ring for the Dempsey middleweight fight but will have to see if it is also the case for the Corbett fight.

You only need to see the pictures to see how slick and technical they were.

Spoiler:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Im struggling with the concept of him fighting at under 160.In the pictures I have seen he is taller than Jeffries and pretty solidly built .He might have considered himself a middleweight but he doesnt look like one to me
What weight did he normally fight at?
I could boxrec it but i really dont want to and dont trust the accuracy of it

He weighed in at 1551/2 the morning of the Corbett fight.

He had the upper body of a HW with spindly little legs - strong enough to carry him and hold him but without excess flesh..

What source has him weighing in at that?

Bob Davis, rep by Monte Cox. While we're there, the National Police Gazette have him at 155,1/2 for his bout against Creedon and most sources have him at 150,1/2 for his bout with nonpareil Dempsey.

My old Nat Fleischer book has him weighing 167 against Corbetts 183
Same book shows him taller than the 6'2" Jeffries
Cant believe he was 155!