BoxRec

Robinson wrote:I am ignorant to this era obviously...what other instances of hard consitent
body punches has Fitz got on his record ?

Fitz was from a time when body shots were the most common of assaults, and the punches were less than today, where the volume of punches are on average 50-75 a round.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Fitz was from a time when body shots were the most common of assaults, and the punches were less than today, where the volume of punches are on average 50-75 a round.

I was meaning by today's heavyweight numbers, punches are at best 75 a round. Back then it was even less, due to thinner gloves, and the more likely chance of getting a hand broken or injured.

The Great John L wrote:
. . .

However, you are correct that in general the fighters in the Fitz era threw less punches, due mostly to the much smaller gloves.

granberry wrote:

The Great John L wrote:
. . .

However, you are correct that in general the fighters in the Fitz era threw less punches, due mostly to the much smaller gloves.

SO MUCH knowledge on display here.

LOL.

Standard crap from the self-proclaimed "boxing historians" :

ALL FIGHTERS fought exactly the same in whatever time period THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Kid Broad fought exactly like Joe Gans.

Kid McCoy fought exactly like Tom Sharkey.

Frank Erne fought exactly like Kid Lavigne.

Bat Nelson fought exactly like Abe Attell.

Jim Jeffries fought exactly like Jim Corbett.



Keep the crap coming, 'experts.'


LOL

Robinson wrote:I dont know what we are discussing any more..?

joe kurtz wrote:Lewis KO1 Fitz. End of story.

Transporting a prime "Ruby Rob" from his era to contest a prime Lewis in his would be like transplanting one of the best of the old time leather helmet teams & expecting them to give either this past year's Pats or Gints any sort of a game in the Superbowl. The result would be absolute carnage.

Terry D wrote:You really are a bitter old f*ck.

Head-to-head I concur with the sentiment that, unless he bulked-up using modern methods (which in turn would alter his fighting style), Lewis would come out a winner.

On the other hand Fitz did bring something new to the sport with the type of accuracy to the body that he showed. His achievements overall are more impressive and you cannot knock what he did.

This may make me sound like a hippy but I would not like to pick between either man.

If their size could be levelled out without altering boxing style then I would plump for Fitz has he has a better body attack and if I recall would also be able to match Lewis at range.

Terry D wrote:

If you want me to educate you some more on the switch then feel free to ask. . . . I find it incredibly tedius with you to be honest but am happy to give your more on the 'switch'.

Now, toddle along you boring motherf*cker and find another forum to ruin because you fool nobody

Terry D wrote:

granberry wrote:

Terry D wrote:

If you want me to educate you some more on the switch then feel free to ask. . . . I find it incredibly tedius with you to be honest but am happy to give your more on the 'switch'.

Now, toddle along you boring motherf*cker and find another forum to ruin because you fool nobody

Is potty-mouthed Terry D telling us that he wears women's clothing?

Where is so-called "moderator" buzz to enforce his so-called posting rules when manure-mouthed Terry makes his juvenile attempts at using potty language?

Where are you buzz?

Are your RULES a farce?

Calling for a ban because I more than answered your question? You are a troll but you are yet to be banned. Run for help from Buzz, why should I give two-shits? I've done a pretty good job of pointing out that not all us real boxing fans spledge in our pants when we hear 'check left hook' because my ears hear 'a step back and counter of a leaping left hook with a left hook'.

Read Fitzsimmons' own boxing manual if you want to get to grips with how 'switch' does not just apply to one action.

Terry D wrote:Not hysterical. Merely mildly bemused by your skewed perception of what discussing boxing is.

Scroll above and tell me if that is or is not a general breakdown of what the 'switch' is. No point asking someone if they know what something is then getting all noncy when they do know.

Sorry to disappoint but other people know about guys like Fitzsimmons also, and unfortunately for you can they can air their opinions freely.

ebeneezer wrote:

Terry D wrote:Not hysterical. Merely mildly bemused by your skewed perception of what discussing boxing is.

Scroll above and tell me if that is or is not a general breakdown of what the 'switch' is. No point asking someone if they know what something is then getting all noncy when they do know.

Sorry to disappoint but other people know about guys like Fitzsimmons also, and unfortunately for you can they can air their opinions freely.

At least he didn't call you a feminine snake