The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Someone from a newspaper posed that question to Bob Fitzsimmons in September 1916.
"Jim Jeffries was the greatest fighter that ever lived"
"Mysterious Billy Smith was the best of the welterweights if watched and trained right.
He seemed immune from punishment"
"Joe Gans was the best lightweight and so far greater then the rest of the field that only one compares with him
-Kid Lavigne.
A fight between them would be a great battle.
"The best bantam and featherweight, to my mind was Little Dixon. He was a fighter. he was a Boxer."
"Pardon me , but I think Old Fitz was a good heavyweight.
A fair kind of chap.
Never wasted any time peeping into the looking glass, nevertheless, he was a fair sort of fighter at 158 lbs"
Source- MIRROR OF LIFE (UK) September 1916
"Jim Jeffries was the greatest fighter that ever lived"
"Mysterious Billy Smith was the best of the welterweights if watched and trained right.
He seemed immune from punishment"
"Joe Gans was the best lightweight and so far greater then the rest of the field that only one compares with him
-Kid Lavigne.
A fight between them would be a great battle.
"The best bantam and featherweight, to my mind was Little Dixon. He was a fighter. he was a Boxer."
"Pardon me , but I think Old Fitz was a good heavyweight.
A fair kind of chap.
Never wasted any time peeping into the looking glass, nevertheless, he was a fair sort of fighter at 158 lbs"
Source- MIRROR OF LIFE (UK) September 1916
Last edited by Caractacus on 12 Jun 2021, 13:04, edited 3 times in total.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15708
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Bob Fitzsimmons- The Best I've Seen
I think that the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England was the best fightet pound per pound of his era.
-
Benny The Kid
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 176
- Joined: 06 Jan 2007, 16:27
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Fitz may have been but he failed to fight too many great's of his era to say that. Unlike Fitz his peer Sharkey took on one of the greatest of their time frame Kid Mccoy. Mccoy was battling it out with the other great's of that period Tommy Ryan. We just can't assume Fitz would steamroll either of these Mccoy or Ryan and you can't give him extra credit for avoiding them, I would of loved to see Fitz fight a real boxer in 1903 like Jack Root. I love Fitzsimmon's but he missed quite a bit of prime fighter's. Yes he beat Gardner which was a spectacular win. But once he went heavyweight he avoided all the great middleweight's.
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
maybe it was him who didn't wanna fight Bob Fitzsimmons.
Ever think of that ?
Ever think of that ?
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Were they Middleweights at the same time? Him and McCoy?
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
how would heavy weight champ of the world bob fitz do vs today's hws? would he be too good?
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
I'm not sure he was ever over 200 pounds was he?margaret thatcher wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 15:35 how would heavy weight champ of the world bob fitz do vs today's hws? would he be too good?
I doubt he'd even be sanctioned to fight today's Heavyweights. Even though he could take a few of 'em I'd bet. Maybe not the boys at the very top, but some of the contenders.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
like which contenders would he beat i wonder
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
I think you can just about compare relative achievements from different eras, I don’t think you can take a guy from 1910, drop him into 2021 and imagine he’d compete. It’s like two different sports.gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
A Fight's a fight.J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50I think you can just about compare relative achievements from different eras, I don’t think you can take a guy from 1910, drop him into 2021 and imagine he’d compete. It’s like two different sports.gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15185
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Sometimes the guy from 1910 was better and could not only compete but win. Sometimes he wasn't. Depends on who you are talking about.
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
The humans back then were naturally a lot tougher and resilent.
No penicilian back in those days and things like that
Most born into extreme hardships.
The Wars of the last 150 years or so killed
many of the great sperm donars off before they could reproduce their strain.
No penicilian back in those days and things like that
Most born into extreme hardships.
The Wars of the last 150 years or so killed
many of the great sperm donars off before they could reproduce their strain.
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
for one thing he would be naturally at least 6 ft 3" 215 lbsmargaret thatcher wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 15:35 how would heavy weight champ of the world bob fitz do vs today's hws? would he be too good?
(without steroids or any hormones therapy)
-
prewarboxing
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 641
- Joined: 22 Jul 2007, 02:58
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Precisely. Well said.gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42A Fight's a fight.J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50I think you can just about compare relative achievements from different eras, I don’t think you can take a guy from 1910, drop him into 2021 and imagine he’d compete. It’s like two different sports.gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08
I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.
Miles Templeton.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya gotgilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42A Fight's a fight.J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50I think you can just about compare relative achievements from different eras, I don’t think you can take a guy from 1910, drop him into 2021 and imagine he’d compete. It’s like two different sports.gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08
I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.
-
Caractacus
- Middleweight
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: 13 Jun 2014, 16:47
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
In a loin-cloth ?I would pick Johnny Weismuller !
and then Sabu for top contender..
and then Sabu for top contender..
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
Well if Anthony Joshua had grown up in that era he'd have had a much harder upbringing. He wouldn't have had the supplements he's had that have helped him build into the mass of muscle he is, which really isn't all that beneficial anyway. It would've been harder for him to get opportunities in 1910 as it was for all Black fighters. I'm gonna say that Fitz beats him in a hard fought contest. I'd assume Joshua always would've been a strong guy regardless of which era he would've been born into, and how he went about building those muscles, but I think Fitz is a more versatile fighter.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got![]()
EDIT: Come to think of it Joshua probably would win here because Fitz was well past his best by 1910. He was more of a late 1800's, early 1900's kinda guy as far as his prime fighting years.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
im just talking the fighters they actually were.....the fitz that existed vs the aj that exists.gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:24Well if Anthony Joshua had grown up in that era he'd have had a much harder upbringing. He wouldn't have had the supplements he's had that have helped him build into the mass of muscle he is, which really isn't all that beneficial anyway. It would've been harder for him to get opportunities in 1910 as it was for all Black fighters. I'm gonna say that Fitz beats him in a hard fought contest. I'd assume Joshua always would've been a strong guy regardless of which era he would've been born into, and how he went about building those muscles, but I think Fitz is a more versatile fighter.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got![]()
EDIT: Come to think of it Joshua probably would win here because Fitz was well past his best by 1910. He was more of a late 1800's, early 1900's kinda guy as far as his prime fighting years.
fitz sometimes weighed in the 150s on fight day, could he have made 147 with cutting do you think?
which welters today would have the best shot of becoming hw champ i wonder
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
The Fitz that existed in 1910 couldn't beat Joshua no.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:43im just talking the fighters they actually were.....the fitz that existed vs the aj that exists.gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:24Well if Anthony Joshua had grown up in that era he'd have had a much harder upbringing. He wouldn't have had the supplements he's had that have helped him build into the mass of muscle he is, which really isn't all that beneficial anyway. It would've been harder for him to get opportunities in 1910 as it was for all Black fighters. I'm gonna say that Fitz beats him in a hard fought contest. I'd assume Joshua always would've been a strong guy regardless of which era he would've been born into, and how he went about building those muscles, but I think Fitz is a more versatile fighter.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07
anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got![]()
EDIT: Come to think of it Joshua probably would win here because Fitz was well past his best by 1910. He was more of a late 1800's, early 1900's kinda guy as far as his prime fighting years.
fitz sometimes weighed in the 150s on fight day, could he have made 147 with cutting do you think?
which welters today would have the best shot of becoming hw champ i wonder
The Fitz from 1900 or thereabouts, quite possibly could.
Sam Langford regularly knocked out big men.
I don't think it's completely impossible that guys that are well under the Heavyweight limit could beat Heavyweights in fights today, you just don't see it anymore. They're not even allowed to try.
That's why so many of the fighters from that era have legacies that can't be surpassed because fighters in the modern era can't even attempt to achieve the things they did. It wouldn't get sanctioned.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
who was the last welterweight who you think would beat any of the hw champs today?
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
I can't say, but if it wasn't impossible then, it's not impossible now. Humanity hasn't transformed into some alternate lifeform since the early 1900's.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 15:06 who was the last welterweight who you think would beat any of the hw champs today?
And I don't know about Welterweights, but I genuinely believe that a prime Gennady Golovkin could beat Deontay Wilder in a fight.
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
That’s my point. I’m not saying one era is superior to the other, just that the conditions are different.gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42A Fight's a fight.J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50I think you can just about compare relative achievements from different eras, I don’t think you can take a guy from 1910, drop him into 2021 and imagine he’d compete. It’s like two different sports.gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08
I'd pick him over Andy Ruiz. Arreola. Guys like that.
I think he'd be even money against the likes of Dillian Whyte or Wilder. Both of them would probably be physically stronger than him, but I think he'd be a better overall fighter than either of them. Could his skills offset their size and strength advantages? Who knows, but it'd be fun to find out.
Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15185
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
It's human nature to focus on what is different, not what is similar. Yes there are different rules, norms in different era. However, at the core, the sport is still similar now as to how it was over 100 years ago.
When Fitzsimmons moved up to take on heavyweights, was really a middleweight/light heavyweight in terms of weight. He did defeat fighters well over 200 pounds. He gave Jeffries a very tough fight in their rematch when Fitzsimmons was well past his best.
We need to get away from the whole weight thing. The needle on the scale doesn't win or lose fights. i.e. A guy weighing 240 doesn't automatically have a 30 pound weight "advantage" over a guy weighing 210.
We also need to get away from dismissing a fighter simply because he fought before out time.
We need to go by what a guy can actually do.
When Fitzsimmons moved up to take on heavyweights, was really a middleweight/light heavyweight in terms of weight. He did defeat fighters well over 200 pounds. He gave Jeffries a very tough fight in their rematch when Fitzsimmons was well past his best.
We need to get away from the whole weight thing. The needle on the scale doesn't win or lose fights. i.e. A guy weighing 240 doesn't automatically have a 30 pound weight "advantage" over a guy weighing 210.
We also need to get away from dismissing a fighter simply because he fought before out time.
We need to go by what a guy can actually do.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39269
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: The Best I've Seen-Bob Fitzsimmons (1916)
bobby won the hw title at 167 on fight day, with a 71 inch reach. impressive!