BoxRec

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

I think that the great Bob Fitzsimmons of England was the best fightet pound per pound of his era.

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.

maybe it was him who didn't wanna fight Bob Fitzsimmons.
Ever think of that ?

Were they Middleweights at the same time? Him and McCoy?

how would heavy weight champ of the world bob fitz do vs today's hws? would he be too good?

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'm not sure he was ever over 200 pounds was he?

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.

like which contenders would he beat i wonder

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:06 like which contenders would he beat i wonder

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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:06 like which contenders would he beat i wonder

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.

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.

J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:08

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑21 Jun 2021, 16:06 like which contenders would he beat i wonder

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.

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.

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

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.

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.

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?

for one thing he would be naturally at least 6 ft 3" 215 lbs
(without steroids or any hormones therapy)

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42

J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50

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.

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.

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

Precisely. Well said.

Miles Templeton.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42

J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50

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.

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.

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got

In a loin-cloth ?I would pick Johnny Weismuller !
and then Sabu for top contender..

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42

J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50

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.

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got

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.

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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:24

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got

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.

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.

im just talking the fighters they actually were.....the fitz that existed vs the aj that exists.

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

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:43

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:24

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 14:07

anthony joshua vs bobby fitz, 1910 in loincloths .....who ya got

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.

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.

im just talking the fighters they actually were.....the fitz that existed vs the aj that exists.

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 that existed in 1910 couldn't beat Joshua no.

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.

who was the last welterweight who you think would beat any of the hw champs today?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 15:06 who was the last welterweight who you think would beat any of the hw champs today?

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.

And I don't know about Welterweights, but I genuinely believe that a prime Gennady Golovkin could beat Deontay Wilder in a fight.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 10:42

J-C wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 01:50

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.

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.

A Fight's a fight.

Do it both ways then. Take the guy from 2021, and drop him in 1910, and let's see how he does.

That’s my point. I’m not saying one era is superior to the other, just that the conditions are different.

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.

bobby won the hw title at 167 on fight day, with a 71 inch reach. impressive!