Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

  1. #1
    Mr E
    Guest

    Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    I inquire into this match-up in order to spark discussion on a more general point.

    Fitzsimmons was, most would agree, all-time great fighter. Some consider him to have been the hardest 2-handed hitter, pound-for-pound, who ever lived. [Personally, I accord that honor to Jack Dempsey, but Fitzsimmons is definitely in the conversation.] But he only weighed between 167-172 pounds at his best.

    Grant was, most would agree, a solid top ten contender but nowhere near a "great" fighter. But he weighed 250 at his best.

    Fitz appears in many all-time heavyweight lists, even unto this day (he finished 20th in the recent IBRO poll). Grant, conversely, appears in none (and rightly so, IMO).

    But, could wily Bob, great as he was, even hope to overcome an 80+ pound size disadvantage and defeat the titanic Grant, mediocre though HE was? And if not, should Fitz be placed ahead of Grant (and others of Grant's size & vintage) in all-time HEAVYWEIGHT lists?

    I'm not sure of the answer myself, but I would like to hear the thoughts of this board.

    E

  2. #2
    Newpoppop
    Guest
    IMHO, there is no comparison. Grant's chin was so delicate, I think I could knock him down.:lol

  3. #3
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest
    Michael Grant is a modern fighter and as such this bout could never be sanctioned.

    Put Grant in those little 4 oz gloves and his jab would bust up Fitz who'd have no clue how to fight a Giant. I don't care that Fitz is a HOF fighter and P4P great, that means nothing in this fight. Grant put up a tremendous fight against Lewis and took many flush shots before going down.

    Guys, don't propose goofy fights with giants against undersized stationary type greats. It don't work on paper and won't work in the ring.

  4. #4
    Kid Achilles
    Guest
    Being stationary and being accessibility to getting punched are two different things. Even Tom Sharky was no punching bag. Science and defense have always been important in boxing. No one wants to get hit by the roughest and hardest punchers in the world, as boxers have been throughout history. You name any of the so called crude old timers and I promise you they had subtleties and tricks to avoid punishment.

    This is an interesting matchup because we have average big man vs. great little man as well as old timer vs. contemporary fighter.

    What can I say about it though, except that there isn't enough on Fitzsimmons in the way of film evidence to really make a good prediction. I will not say he would get blasted out by Michael Grant because who knows. He had the power to dispose of a 300 pounder (I think his name was Ed Donkhurst) so I think he could hurt Grant if he could survive long enough.

    I don't know, but I won't discredit Fitzsimmons chances just because I don't have footage of the guy.

  5. #5
    greek1237
    Guest
    5 rounds of Fitz vs Corbett.

    and 1 more Fitz fight I belive, it lasted a round.

    So we have 6 rounds total of Fitz. I would relly like to belive Fitz would land a body shot and down goes Grant. but we can never relly be 2 sure on this.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    497
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    While I never saw Fitz fight in person, I have seen Grant, plus numerous viewings of Grant on the tube.

    Figure Grant ineffectively paws his jab, tries his right finding air and glove, then tries to wrestle...at which point "Ruby Robert" rips his guts out.

    Fitz by KO within 7.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Jeffries wasn't quite as big as Grant, but he was a very big man who also used a pawing left to keep smaller men where he wanted them. And in both their fights, if Jeff didn't have a chin of solid granite, he'd have been destroyed. Especially in their second fight, where Fitz beat him so badly that Jeffries's face was butchered beyond recognition before Fitz tired out from beating him and was KOed. If Grant had to take even a small percentage of the beating Jeffries took, he'd lay down like a cat on a heating vent. Grant was nothing.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by TKO11
    he'd lay down like a cat on a heating vent.
    LOL-- nice turn of phrase!

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    43
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Grant was rather mediocre. But he had a late start. He was more of an athlete than anything else. But there's no way Fitzsimmons could have beat him. No way at all. If you believe that then believe Shane Moseley could beat David Tua.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    I believe Bernard Hopkins could beat David Tua. Handily and probably by complete shut out.

    For that matter, I think if you can move at all, you SHOULD beat David Tua. Hell, I'd even pick Grant to beat him. Tua actually fought about 20 rounds in his whole freakin' lazy-ass career, cut that in half if you remove the Ibeabuchi fight.

    I don't know if Fitzsimmons can beat Grant only because I don't know a whole helluva lot about Fitz but to imply that the size differential is all Grant needs is ludicrous.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    43
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Grant wasn't a bad fighter, but he wasn't awe inspiring to say the least. But to think that a 170 pd. man from the prehistoric era from boxing could beat him, is ludicrous. Grant did have a good punch. That is when hitting other heavyweights. Now translate that to a middleweight or light heavyweight. That good punch suddenly becomes much harder to a smaller man. If it didn't you'd have Floyd Mayweather just outspeeding heavyweights, and being able to absorb the punches they'd occasionally land, without a great deal of difficulty. I should say with no more difficulty than the guys he's fought in the lighter weight divisions. To think he or Hopkins could beat someone like let's say Klitschko (he's not even all that good), is crazy. It wouldn't happen. I realize Grant's a bum. But there's no way Fitzsimmons makes it out of the first 30 seconds. By the way, Hopkins would be decapitated by Tua with the first shot he landed.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Mike 5150, clearly you follow the "time machine" theory on matching up fighters from different eras: Get in a time machine, go to 1897 and pick-up Fitz, transport him magically back to 2000, and throw him in the ring with Michael Grant.

    I know that some of my friends on his board disagree, but I am of a like-mind with Ron Lipton regarding fighters of bygone eras: "I accepted and always understood the evolution of modern boxing but never liked the hands low, leaning back on the rear leg, excessive clinching etc. It would not work too well against a class A+ modern fighter, who trained to deal with it. Yet those old bastards could be very tricky."

    So, try your analysis from this angle: Michael Grant is born in 1872, not 1972. He learns to fight and train under the same conditions as Fitz, Corbett, Ruhlin, Jeffries, Tom Sharkey, etc. Is there still "no way Fitzsimmons makes it out of the first 30 seconds"? Or, instead, Fitz is born in 1975, not 1863 and learns to fight and train under today's methods and styles. Is there still "no way Fitzsimmons makes it out of the first 30 seconds"? A great ahtlete is a great athlete regardless of when he lived.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    I'll take this one step further.

    Valuev DESTROYS Tyson- AS THEY WERE.

    If Fitzsimmons couldn't possibly overcome 50,60, 70 pounds than neither can Mike. No way, no how.

    I rest my case.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    I'll just re-state my earlier case on this one. Jeffries was almost as big as Grant, and to say he took a better punch is like saying the Empire State Building is taller than a 1977 Pinto. Fitz had no problem getting past the pawing left, jackhammer right and quick left hook of Jeffries. He WILL reach Grant. And then the tinkling of broken glass will be heard on the next continent.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    92
    vCash
    500

    my gosh

    i can't actually believe someone would pick grant to beat fitz... this fight would be short, brutal, and very unpleasant to watch.

    keep in mind that fitz, while VERY small for a heavyweight, was fast of hand, cagey, tough, and hit hard enough to hurt heavyweights. not i do think grant hit hard enough to flatten fitz, but that would NEVER HAPPEN; fitz is far too smart and cagey to be hit by grant. fitz would feint poor michael into a knot and then... i think TKO said it best.

    we are talking about one of the greatest fighters ever, and even a fighter who fought and defeated the best heavyweights of his time vs a run of the mill 2nd rate heavyweight. sorry, but grant is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over his head.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by Husker
    I'll take this one step further.

    Valuev DESTROYS Tyson- AS THEY WERE.

    If Fitzsimmons couldn't possibly overcome 50,60, 70 pounds than neither can Mike. No way, no how.

    I rest my case.
    You might think about reopening your case. Fitzsimmons DESTROYED Dunkhorst in 2 rounds in 1900 AS THEY WERE. Dunk weighed probably about 260 for that fight, according to ringside reports; Fitz maybe 170. Dunk was not a world-beater - apparently neither is Valuev - but he did beat Bob Armstrong, and made a decent showing against several top heavyweights of the day including Gus Ruhlin and Peter Maher. Yet Fitz demolished him.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    raylaw - Husk was being ironic.....

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,438
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    With some of the stuff that's been posted on this board lately, you never know . . .

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: raylawpc

    LOL !

    I can just see you sitting there thinking to yourself "Not another one!"

    I'm sure some of my more radical ideas will have you questioning me at some point but as TKO11 duly noted, this was not the case.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by mike 5150
    Grant wasn't a bad fighter,

    I realize Grant's a bum.
    These two statements were made within the same post. I think that says it all about Mr. 5150. PeteLeo.

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    43
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    I didn't know the comparison was supposed to be if you took this guy from this era and put him here, under the training that was available at that time. I was thinking taking them as is, regardless of what time they came from. If Grant was born back then, I think the same result. If Fitzsimmons was born today, same result. As I stated previously weight differences don't seem to make as big of an impact at the heavyweight level, as they do the lighter weight classes. Yes, we see fairly evenly matched heavies fight all the time. Sometimes one fighter has a significant advantage on the other. But we know the guy that's a good deal heavier doesn't always win. In lighter classes it doesn't work that way. I may be wrong but wouldn't Fitz have been a supermiddle today? I tried not to be insulting. But some people here suspend the bounds of reality, when giving their evaluations of how these fights would have wen't down. It's always like those from decades ago always win, or the moderns just barely scrape by. Robinson was better than Holmes. Much better. But would he beat him weighing 160?

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Mike - if you think Holmes wqould beat Robinson, and want to discuss this as an "as is" match, AND you feel Robinson is P4P "much" greater, why not present an ARGUMENT for it? Why just say "this is so". You won't get much respect for making proclamations.

    For instance, on this thread I pointed out what Fitz did to Jeffries, who took a punch as well than any man in history. And that Jeffries was close to Grant's sice. And that Jeffries was a much better fighter. And that if Fitz found Grant's chin with 10% of what he laid on Jeffries' chin, Grant would be toast. Burnt toast. And that given that Grant wasn't exactly the hardest guy to get to despite his size.

    So tell me where I'm wrong. Not just that I am wrong (in your not so humble opinion). Explain why, with some argument other than "Grant was so much bigger" or "Grant had modern training methods". Those aren't arguments, they are wastes of board space.

  23. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re:

    The heavyweight forcefield:

    Like some forgotten Ninja doctrine, it shields heavies from the other weight classes. You apparently can have two heavies be fifty pounds apart in weight (provided it fits your argument) but if a lightheavyweight or middleweight tries to cross this line, he will be smitten.

    Apparently Grant-Fitzsimmons rules don't apply to Valuev-Tyson. And since George looked bigger than 218, why it must be so. And the 187-192 I've read for every Dempsey fight must be false also and Lord knows, there was no solid muscle on him.

    Gimme a freakin' break. For the record, you can keep your so-called apology and maybe back up a statement with something other than freakin' one-sided nonsense.

  24. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    347
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by Husker
    I'll take this one step further.

    Valuev DESTROYS Tyson- AS THEY WERE.
    Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?

  25. #25
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by TKO11
    For instance, on this thread I pointed out what Fitz did to Jeffries, who took a punch as well than any man in history. And that Jeffries was close to Grant's sice. And that Jeffries was a much better fighter. And that if Fitz found Grant's chin with 10% of what he laid on Jeffries' chin, Grant would be toast. Burnt toast. And that given that Grant wasn't exactly the hardest guy to get to despite his size.

    So tell me where I'm wrong.
    You're wrong.

    Grant is a giant compared to Jeffries. Jeffries was also more of a natural talent and physical phenom when he met Fitz rather than a savvy boxer. His style was crude and especially designed to take advantage of his physical advantages over the smallish heavies of the day. Fitz knew he couldn't match Jeff physically, so he took advantage of his vast experience and gave Jeffries a boxing lesson before being overcome.

    Grant obviously has some deficiencies, but the man can fight and has 41 wins and only 3 losses. It has been about a century since a 170 lb fighter has held the heavy title, Tommy Burns, and no doubt all the Tommyboys will be out tooting up Tommy over Grant too.

    Why not go further and say little 96lb Jimmy Wilde would knock Grant into the 5th row because he's such an all time great and beat bigger men?

    Getting back to Fitz, another inexperienced boxer, Corbett, gave Fitz a great thumping before Fitz landed his new, never seen before Solar Plexis punch. Unfortunately, poor Fitz never even made a single successful defense of his title thanks to Jeffries, but now he beats all today's heavyweights with a single mighty blow to the pits of their big bellies?

    You boys need to come up with a new color of KoolAide and get Paris Hilton to market it for ya.

  26. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto Aqui
    You're wrong.

    Grant is a giant compared to Jeffries. Jeffries was also more of a natural talent and physical phenom when he met Fitz rather than a savvy boxer. His style was crude and especially designed to take advantage of his physical advantages over the smallish heavies of the day. Fitz knew he couldn't match Jeff physically, so he took advantage of his vast experience and gave Jeffries a boxing lesson before being overcome.

    Grant obviously has some deficiencies, but the man can fight and has 41 wins and only 3 losses. It has been about a century since a 170 lb fighter has held the heavy title, Tommy Burns, and no doubt all the Tommyboys will be out tooting up Tommy over Grant too.

    Why not go further and say little 96lb Jimmy Wilde would knock Grant into the 5th row because he's such an all time great and beat bigger men?

    Getting back to Fitz, another inexperienced boxer, Corbett, gave Fitz a great thumping before Fitz landed his new, never seen before Solar Plexis punch. Unfortunately, poor Fitz never even made a single successful defense of his title thanks to Jeffries, but now he beats all today's heavyweights with a single mighty blow to the pits of their big bellies?

    You boys need to come up with a new color of KoolAide and get Paris Hilton to market it for ya.
    There are a few things that need to be taken into account here.

    First off, NO-ONE is saying Fitz knocks out or beats all the HWs of today. I don't think he does. But this matchup is matching up a great smaller man vs a above average-good big man with a chin of pure glass.

    2ndly, Fitz was regarded then, as he would be now, as a freak of nature. He had a HW punch and upper-body over those skinny legs of his. Nowadays you don't see that b/c you don't get natural middleweights who build their strength through years as a blacksmith. That builds lasting strength you won't get from a few hrs a day in the gym.

    And for this talk of the 'evolution' of boxing training etc., chins haven't gotten any better.

    Grant was not very good defensively. Fitz was very fast and crafty.

    Where does Grant have the big advantages here? Everything points to Fitz landing first, and the glass chinned guy getting knocked out.

    And in regards to Fitz suddenly being smashed by a Grant jab, has not the careers of two middleweights, Chris Byrd and fat James Toney showed anything?? Yes they bulked up (in Toney's case, ate up), but bulking up does not make your chin any better. And they both proved to have two of the best chins in the HW division this decade.

  27. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto Aqui
    You're wrong.

    Grant is a giant compared to Jeffries. Jeffries was also more of a natural talent and physical phenom when he met Fitz rather than a savvy boxer. His style was crude and especially designed to take advantage of his physical advantages over the smallish heavies of the day. Fitz knew he couldn't match Jeff physically, so he took advantage of his vast experience and gave Jeffries a boxing lesson before being overcome.

    Grant obviously has some deficiencies, but the man can fight and has 41 wins and only 3 losses. It has been about a century since a 170 lb fighter has held the heavy title, Tommy Burns, and no doubt all the Tommyboys will be out tooting up Tommy over Grant too.

    Why not go further and say little 96lb Jimmy Wilde would knock Grant into the 5th row because he's such an all time great and beat bigger men?

    Getting back to Fitz, another inexperienced boxer, Corbett, gave Fitz a great thumping before Fitz landed his new, never seen before Solar Plexis punch. Unfortunately, poor Fitz never even made a single successful defense of his title thanks to Jeffries, but now he beats all today's heavyweights with a single mighty blow to the pits of their big bellies?

    You boys need to come up with a new color of KoolAide and get Paris Hilton to market it for ya.
    There are a few things that need to be taken into account here.

    First off, NO-ONE is saying Fitz knocks out or beats all the HWs of today. I don't think he does. But this matchup is matching up a great smaller man vs a above average-good big man with a chin of pure glass.

    2ndly, Fitz was regarded then, as he would be now, as a freak of nature. He had a HW punch and upper-body over those skinny legs of his. Nowadays you don't see that b/c you don't get natural middleweights who build their strength through years as a blacksmith. That builds lasting strength you won't get from a few hrs a day in the gym.

    And for this talk of the 'evolution' of boxing training etc., chins haven't gotten any better.

    Grant was not very good defensively. Fitz was very fast and crafty.

    Where does Grant have the big advantages here? Everything points to Fitz landing first, and the glass chinned guy getting knocked out.

    And in regards to Fitz suddenly being smashed by a Grant jab, has not the careers of two middleweights, Chris Byrd and fat James Toney showed anything?? Yes they bulked up (in Toney's case, ate up), but bulking up does not make your chin any better. And they both proved to have two of the best chins in the HW division this decade.

  28. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,851
    vCash
    500

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Come on Roberto. Grant was 6'6" and weighed about 250, and his record is littered with second raters. Jeffries was 6'3" and 220. Jeffreis is smaller, but not nearly the way you make it sound.

    The only guy Grant showed balls against was Golota, and you probably don't need me to tell you what I think of Golota. Fitz would be in quick, hit and Grant would tumble like a house of cards. The guy didn't have the talent or speed to hit anyoen working him that way, only stationary target that co-operated.

    As far as Jeff's style being crude... I agree. So was Grant's.

    And why is Corbett's success against Fitz an argument here? Does Grant fight one iota like Corbett?

    ...now he beats all today's heavyweights with a single mighty blow...
    Yes, I can see how you arrived there from me saying that Fitz takes out one virtually hapless galoot.

    You are the king of exxaggeration and overstatment. And on this board recently, that is saying something.

  29. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Clarkton, NC/Minneapolis, MN (2019)
    Posts
    749
    vCash
    500

    Re: newpoppop

    That was sarcasm directed at another poster who was relating everything to size. I don't think Valuev makes it out of the 2nd round with Iron Mike, I was just making a point of comparison.

  30. #30
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Bob Fitzsimmons v. Michael Grant

    Quote Originally Posted by TKO11
    You are the king of exxaggeration and overstatment. And on this board recently, that is saying something.
    May I ask for your hand to be my Queen then?

    Nobody has ever bigged up Grant, but nobody would even propose such a proposterous fight today because it wouldn't be sanctioned. Put Grant back in Fitz's day in those little 3 oz gloves and you're talking about major facial breakage when Grant lands.

    Jeffries was listed as 6'2 and Grant 6'7. Grant is as big or bigger than the first champ ever mentioned as a giant, Jess Willard. Now if you saw that single right hand that Jess lands on Jack Johnson you might understand the physics involved. Grant hits as hard as Willard who is often undervalued as unskilled. Grant rocked Lewis before going down in one of the most action packed intense heavy fights I've seen. Bobby Fitz would not be getting up from all those Lewis smashes, and was no fancy dancer or defensive specialist. The only reason the Grant fight is not rated higher is because Grant is not considered a great fighter, but he was undefeated at the time and those 2nd raters you claim he beat were ranked heavies like Golota, former champs like Cole who was much bigger than Fitz.

    As far as Fitz being a freak of nature, many champs or greats were, like Langford, Roy Jones, Ali, Jeffries, Dempsey, Duran, Liston, Tyson or Max Baer.

    So were George Godfrey, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Valuev, Corrie Sanders, Bob Satterfield, but being a freak of nature won't guarantee a heavy title. Circumstance and style play a HUGE role in boxing as Peter Jackson and Buster Douglas can attest to. I would put money on any of the above against Fitz with the 50-1 odds you chaps would lavish on me and invite you to the banquet I would throw afterwards!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home