Head to Head: Fitzsimmons v Greb

Does anybody else feel this would be a magnificent match up? Two of the greatest pound for pound fighters in history (both top ten in my rankings). The fight could theoretically happen anywhere between 160 and 175, but as both men were arguably at their brilliant best at Middleweight then this is where I would have this fictional mouthwatering match up take place. The bigger question is simple - who wins?

Lets take Fitzsimmons first:

He is without question one of the biggest punching fighters of all time. I believe he is the hardest hitter pound for pound bar none. In fact even looking outside "pound for pound" I still believe he is right up there with even the big hitting heavies. His power translates into something truly awesome at middleweight. His destruction of fellow all time great and magnificent fighter in his own right, Jack Dempsey to win the world middleweight title is frightning evidence of his destructive power.

Fitzsimmons experience from the bareknuckle days had given him an uncanny knowledge of the weak spots on the human body, as body punching was more proficient in bareknuckle. This combined with his lethal body punching, strategic thinking and destructive power meant that there were few better able to "chop the body". He won his heavyweight crown from Jim Corbett - a man few at the time were able to catch cleanly. Yet Fitzsimmons was not only able to catch him. But also knock him out with punch straight to the body. This tells all you need to know about the threat he carried.

Because Fitzsimmons never really settled in a weight class with any real longetivity, he loses out in many peoples divisional lists and tends to be saved for overall pound for pound lists. Thus he appears to be perfect for speculating on head to head matches. One can only imagine what he could have acheived if he had set his stall out to remain at middleweight for his entire career.

Next up is Greb:

I have Greb as the greatest Middleweight of all time and a top 5 pound for pound fighter of all time. Unlike Fitzsimmons he is easy to place in pound for pound and divisional terms. All one needs to do is look at his record. The Pittsburgh Windmill earned his name through relentless assaults and workrate. Few could keep the man off of them for more than a couple of rounds. He is maybe the supreme "swarmer" fighter in boxings history. He had almost limitless stamina, outstanding robustness, lightning fast hands and a huge workrate and will to win. He beat everyone there was to beat (and a whole lot more) in his career which saw him fight on an almost monthly basis.

As for the fight itself, how do people see it going? Greb was unbelievably difficult to knock out, but if anyone could it would be Bob Fitzimmons. Certainly Fitzsimmons has the edge in power and strength, but would it be enough to keep the relentless Greb at bay for a full 15 rounds? In boxing they often say that sluggers beat swarmers. I wouldnt neccessarily describe Fitzsimmons as a slugger, but he sure could slug with the best of them and one would have to be concerned for Greb being constantly in range of Fitzsimmons lethal fists. However ultimately I see Grebs mastery at infighting, his outstanding durability and his constant pressure being enough to survive Fitsimmons power threat and win a points decision.

Greb for me. I would even go as far as saying Fitz only has a punchers chance. I cant see how wins it on points at all.

His power is a big eualiser in many ways and had Greb not proved his durability throughout his career I would be more concerned but as you mention, hes as tough as they come.

I think Fitzsimmons is a boxer whos acheivements ultimately outweight his talents as a fighter. Hes basically a KO artists due to his freakish strength but not on the same level as Greb as a boxer. The Corbett fight you mention highlights his power but by all accounts he was being given a real beating until he found Corbett to the body. Many of his early fights are against questionable/unknown opposition and dont really highlight anything other than his power. As an actual boxer I still view him as transitional phase in terms of style and record.

Grebs pressure and cutting off the ring would disrupt Fitzsimmons and make it difficult to get shots off. His quality up close would be too much for Fitz and I see him taking a handy points decision overall. Greb is just the superior boxer overall is the way I see it.

Personally I'm cynical of Fitz being 'right up there with even the big hitting heavies'. I don't doubt that he hit hard, but we're talking about a guy who's not much more than a super middleweight in today's terms. Taking this into account, and Greb's reputation for being durable, his ability to mix with bigger fighters as well as his win over Tunney, I'd plump for Greb in this one.

Fitzsimmons for me 9 times out of 10, when at his best he only struggled with Jeffries who outweighed him by a good two stone or so and while Greb was very durable I don't see him being as durable as JJJ. Fitzsimmons was a master at working an opening and I can't see Greb going a full 20/25 rounds without being hit big at which point the whole complexion of the fight would change. Think Manos is being incredibly harsh on ol' Fitz who was far more skilled than he's making out and has also bypassed the fact that Greb was outboxed by Tunney for large periods of their series.

Fitzsimmons KO in 15

Mouthwatering prospect, if ever there was one.

I also have Greb as best middle of the lot, and his record is ample evidence that he could mix it with men bigger than he. Legend has it that he even held his own against Dempsey when the two of them tangled in sparring. I'm not sure how much we read into that since, while Dempsey wasn't the sort to hold back, sparring and fighting for titles and money are two different things.

Fitz, of course, was a cunning and crafty fighter, had the heart and stamina of ten men, and was pretty durable, notwithstanding the fact that man mountain Jeffries was twice able to separate him from his senses.

Who wins ? Greb's industry to trump Fitz' power and cleverness would be my bet, but who cares ? Just get me a ticket.

No real comparsion in records for me. Alot of Fitzsimmons wins are against dubious opposition whereas one can say for sure that Greb beat virtually all the top guys between MW to LH at varying points.

Much of Fitzsimmons placings are to do with him winning titles at MW and HW. He beats maybe 2/3 HoF fighters but boxing at this stage was still moving from the bareknuckle phase. I dont think hes as good as Greb and I think Grebs style disrupts him sufficiently. If it transpires Greb cant deal with the power, then fair enough Fitzsimmons wins by KO. Anything else and its a Greb win for me.

I dont think Fitzsimmons is a bad boxer but I dont think he has what it takes to beat Greb.

Chonski, Corbett, Maher, Sharkey, Gardner and O'brien- Dubious opposition?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chonski, Corbett, Maher, Sharkey, Gardner and O'brien- Dubious opposition?

It's not an AWESOME list though, is it?

It's a pretty damm good list and i'd forgot to add Dempsey to it

Comparatively a lot better than most

See, this is a little too close to an Az moment for my liking, but I do think that sometimes too much praise is heaped on some of the early boxers. Names like Choynski, Sharkey and O'Brien stand out for me as being almost the equivalent of today's gatekeepers. As often as not they failed when up against the top level fighters of their day.

On that note i'll leave this debate well alone

I realise I've probably opened myself up to all kinds of scorn in daring to question the hallowed grounds, but lately so much weight has been placed on the skills of the old-timers that sometimes they're placed on too great a pedestal.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chonski, Corbett, Maher, Sharkey, Gardner and O'brien- Dubious opposition?

Significant portions of his career are against dubious opposition. The list above is solid. Not saying otherwise. But its not a patch on the kind of fights Greb was having and winning on a regular basis. For most of Fitzsimmons career its hard to say who or what he was fighting.

The "heavies" he was beating, for the most part, were the small breed 180-190 and I think much of his place in history is owed to the fact he won the heavyweight title when he was mainly a middleweight.

I dont doubt his acheivement or place in boxing as well earned but I dont think it particularly translates as being as impressive into other eras. I still feel boxing was developmental back then in terms of its style and the overall structure of the sport.

Greb, on the other hand I am much more confident in rating and his record between middleweight to lightheavy is exceptional.

Calling the likes of Choynski or O'brien gatekeepers is akin to calling Hopkins one after all he lost to the two best fighters he fought

Choynski didn't have the benefit of 17 weight classes, he either had to be a middleweight of a heavyweight, how would Jones have faired if he had to face Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson and Lewis instead of the guys in the 168lb or 175lb division?

OK, gatekeeper is perhaps a bit harsh, but nonetheless I think a bit of perspective is making when the fighters from that era are discussed. I'm not about to take the Az line that every boxer now is some kind of space age superman by comparison.

The thing is when you ask "how would Jones have faired if he had to face Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson and Lewis instead of the guys in the 168lb or 175lb division", you're not mentioning the fact that those guys are much, much bigger than the 'heavyweights' that O'Brien & co would have faced. How would any of the old time greats have fared if they'd had to compete against heavyweights who were proportioned more like their late-twentieth-century counterparts? The middleweight of the twenties would still have been very close in size and weight to modern middleweights, but heavies by comparison have changed drastically.

I'm not saying that the extra size would automatically make a difference, but when someone like Jess Willard was seen as something of a monster, it does make me wonder how someone like Tyson, Lewis or Bowe would have been perceived if viewed through early twentieth century eyes.

Stay on the issue. Dont mind me.

Both were in the pre black and white era so it would be an interesting stand up match.

As for who would win, I'd go for Greb.

James J Jeffries was a small heavyweight after all wasn't he and thats also ignoring the fact that modern Middleweights would be a good 10lb or so bigger than their counterparts in the old time eras with the benefit of a day to rehydrate after a weigh in but go ahead and dismiss the old timers all you want wont hear any arguments from me.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:James J Jeffries was a small heavyweight after all wasn't he and thats also ignoring the fact that modern Middleweights would be a good 10lb or so bigger than their counterparts in the old time eras with the benefit of a day to rehydrate after a weigh in but go ahead and dismiss the old timers all you want wont hear any arguments from me.

I'm not simply dismissing them though, that's the thing. Jeffries would be a small heavyweight by today's standards, yes, but he was still around 200lbs and over six feet tall. Jones facing the heavyweights you named is different to Fitz facing 'heavies' who rarely weighed over 180.

Jeffries was 220lbs which is roughly the same weigh as the majority of the great heavyweights compared to the K bros he may be small but even then they aren't the norm of today.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Jeffries was 220lbs which is roughly the same weigh as the majority of the great heavyweights compared to the K bros he may be small but even then they aren't the norm of today.

So what's your point, 'cause you've lost me a bit there mate?

As for the Klits; their height is becoming more and more the norm. Helenius, Towers, Fury, Dimitrenko, Dallas are all taller than Willard & Carnera. Add in the Klits, Valuev...even Audley and Lewis are about 6'5.

Foreman, Liston, Ali, Louis, Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes, Witherspoon, Norton were all in the 200-220lb region which would suggest bigger is not necessarily better. Riddick Bowe who is considered a fairly big heavyweight was at his optimum at about 230lbs, Lewis was slightly bigger than that.

Getting back to the actual OP, Fitzsimmons power would conquer Grebs work rate and durability over the long haul.

I never once said bigger was better though, did I? My argument was that Fitz's legendary power is, in my opinion, exaggerated out of proportion. He was a super middleweight-cum-light heavyweight who was knocking over guys who for the most part would have been cruisers at the very most. I'm not denying he had power, but Greb had been in with equally larger guys.

Tunney was the biggest opponent whom Greb faced and he weighed within the light heavyweight limit so generally faced smaller opponents than Fitzsimmons did.

But aside from the half dozen you mentioned, who was there he fought that we know to have been any good?

The same applies to each and every boxer, how many through history can claim to have beaten 5 hall of fame inductees?

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't know. Surely the criteria is weighted in favour of older boxers though. They fought more times and their opponents have had more opportunities to be inducted.

They didn't fight that often in Fitzsimmons era and the major peak in inductees would be around 1930-1950 I would imagine

But that's you imagining, not a fact, and Fitz's record is comprised of over eighty fights, or so I've read. That's more than any top level guy today. Fact still remains that his opponents have had more opportunities to be inducted.

How have they had more opportunities to be inducted? The hall of fame only started in 1990 so any fighter who had retired by 1985 was eligible hardly weighting it in favour of any particular era, i'll use Cervantes as an example because he fought into the 80's and had as much opportunity as O'brien for induction.

Julio Cesar Chavez had over 100 fights so their are exceptions to ever rule, Jeffries, Corbett, Sharkey and Dempsey had far less fights than that while the first 3 fought less than Pacquiao or Hopkins of todays era

OK, so I'm mistaken on the HOF's age, but that doesn't change the fact that he fought more than any of the current crop of champions have. I'm just not 100% sold on his myth, it's as simple as that. There's no hard evidence to say how hard he truly hit, and that's much of what his legend is built upon. I think Greb stood every chance of overwhelming him.

Helps to get your facts right before you proclaim them as facts, his legend is built upon the fact he was the first ever triple world champion achieved at the age of 40 and his legendary power is merely a side issue.

Greb as brilliant as his record is there's no hard evidence to say anything about his style much like Fitzsimmons, stick to the D4 bashing this has gone way over your head.

Where did I get it wrong? His supposed power IS much of what his legend is about. The fact you're now telling me I'm over my head merely tells me you don't have the ability to continue a discussion in a more mature fashion.

Talk about Fitz being a triple world champion all you like, but he never beat any world champion who was what we'd consider a heavyweight by today's standards, and when he won the LHW title it was fought within today's super middleweight limit. In the scheme of thongs these are of little relevance, but he was far from this force of nature destroying men twice his size one-handedly.

So he beat Choynski. He's listed as being about a stone heavier than Choynski was.

He beat O'Brien-he was the same weight, so no giant killing there.

Fitz's record is padded out with wins over guys who might have been bigger than he was, but when these guys are little more than spectators who fancied their chances it's less than impressive. I imagine if Cotto or Martinez were to fight me they'd beat me, despite a significant weight difference.

If the best you can offer by way of debate is a snide snobbish remark then perhaps you should reconsider your own contribution, my friend.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Helps to get your facts right before you proclaim them as facts, his legend is built upon the fact he was the first ever triple world champion achieved at the age of 40 and his legendary power is merely a side issue.

Greb as brilliant as his record is there's no hard evidence to say anything about his style much like Fitzsimmons, stick to the D4 bashing this has gone way over your head.

He was a 40 year old part time alcholic and blacksmith. Yes he could whack some. But lets not overstate things. His status is based on what he achieved. He would never do that today. In fact he would have difficulty winning the oceana/south pacific regional belt today.

Different times, different eras and different styles. No comparison. But Greb takes him out.

See this is the thing with some of the older guys; they're often guys who have taken well to boxing because they've had an upbringing which involved a good amount of physical work. Fitz had his strength from smithing. It's a bit of a no-brainer, in that respect. I do genuinely question the consistency of the standard of his opposition.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Helps to get your facts right before you proclaim them as facts, his legend is built upon the fact he was the first ever triple world champion achieved at the age of 40 and his legendary power is merely a side issue.

Greb as brilliant as his record is there's no hard evidence to say anything about his style much like Fitzsimmons, stick to the D4 bashing this has gone way over your head.

He was a 40 year old part time alcholic and blacksmith. Yes he could whack some. But lets not overstate things. His status is based on what he achieved. He would never do that today. In fact he would have difficulty winning the oceana/south pacific regional belt today.

Different times, different eras and different styles. No comparison. But Greb takes him out.

Wouldn't even win a New Zealand national title. Sonny Bill Williams has explosive power from rugby and is 17 stone.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Helps to get your facts right before you proclaim them as facts, his legend is built upon the fact he was the first ever triple world champion achieved at the age of 40 and his legendary power is merely a side issue.

Greb as brilliant as his record is there's no hard evidence to say anything about his style much like Fitzsimmons, stick to the D4 bashing this has gone way over your head.

He was a 40 year old part time alcholic and blacksmith. Yes he could whack some. But lets not overstate things. His status is based on what he achieved. He would never do that today. In fact he would have difficulty winning the oceana/south pacific regional belt today.

Different times, different eras and different styles. No comparison. But Greb takes him out.

Wouldn't even win a New Zealand national title. Sonny Bill Williams has explosive power from rugby and is 17 stone.

Yep. Give him some mits, throw him in with fits after a few drinks and watch the legend grow. These were untrained drunks with gloves on swapping punches until the other chap fell.

That's a little bit of an extreme example, but I do think in some instances it's probably not as far from the truth as some people would have you think.

BALTIMORA wrote:That's a little bit of an extreme example, but I do think in some instances it's probably not as far from the truth as some people would have you think.

I can imagine carnival fighters with bales of hay to make a ring out in some field somewhere in the middle of no-where and watching them duke it out in a stick em up stylie, until one of them fell.

If anything Jeffries proves the point. Fitzsimmons was knocked out by a fully fledged top heavy.

The Corbett he beat outweighed him by about a stone. Reports of the fight indicate that he is largely on the recieiving end of a beating and struggles big time with the (then) quite novel jab and move style before he gets to Corbett. Impressive - yes for sure but "heavyweight" in terms of Corbett is really just a large Lightheavy or cruiser by terms now. Haye will be giving away more size to Klitschko than Fitzsimmons did to Corbett in all liklihood.

If heavies remained in the 180-190 bracket then the phenomenon of middles and lightheavies winning heavyweight titles would still be prevailent today I would say.

In the early, early days I believe the rules were that a round continued until one man was knocked down, at which point he'd be given a brief break. So yeah, not a million miles from the truth. I'm sure if I'm wrong some helpful soul will point it out. There was...I think it was Sullivan-Kilrain, where the fight was...well, to quote Wikipedia:

"it looked as if Sullivan was going to lose, especially after he vomited during the 44th round. But the champion got his second wind after that, and Kilrain's manager finally threw in the towel after the 75th round"

I think that says a lot about the differences between then (1889)and now.

Manos; you've hit it on the head. I really don't like the current prevalence of huge 'super' heavyweights, but there's no denying that their size MUST be effective, or we wouldn't be seeing so many of them. Your last sentence sums up my own take on things very succinctly.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Helps to get your facts right before you proclaim them as facts, his legend is built upon the fact he was the first ever triple world champion achieved at the age of 40 and his legendary power is merely a side issue.

Greb as brilliant as his record is there's no hard evidence to say anything about his style much like Fitzsimmons, stick to the D4 bashing this has gone way over your head.

He was a 40 year old part time alcholic and blacksmith. Yes he could whack some. But lets not overstate things. His status is based on what he achieved. He would never do that today. In fact he would have difficulty winning the oceana/south pacific regional belt today.

Different times, different eras and different styles. No comparison. But Greb takes him out.

I've nothing to add to the debate other than that which I've already contributed, except :

az, your trashing of Fitz and the oldies is tiresome and ignorant. I'd very much like to see EVIDENCE that Fitz was an alcoholic. I've read more words about Fitzsimmons than Tolstoy wrote in his lifetime, and I've never read that he was an alcoholic. Either produce the evidence or stop the libellous nonsense, please. Thank you. Besides, Mr Sugar, ( or Saccharine, in your case, ) I dare say that the eighties heavies whom you so revere might have been prone to a charge of substance abuse, or did their free radicals and creatine nullify the effects ? Or let us consider Mr Bowe, who enjoyed munchies so much that he installed a fridge in his bedroom.

Would be interested to hear your comments regarding the atmosphere on Pluto, rather than your plunging into the murky waters of boxing history. You might actually know something about the atmosphere of Pluto, after all. We can but hope.

For the record, Jeffries was over 6ft.2ins. tall, ( Boxrec have his stats wrong, ) and weighed around 220 - 225lb. Statistically, had he been born in the mid sixties he would be around 6ft.4ins. and 230 - 235lb. Jess Willard was almost exactly the same size as Vitali Klitschko, just shy of 6ft.7ins.

Without wanting to get dragged into a debate that has been done to death the only thing I would add is it is pretty much accepted boxing technique took something of a quantun leap around the 1920's with Leonard and Dempsey introducing upper body movement and slipping punches. However to assume all that went before were have a go hard men devoid of any ability is ignorant in the extreme.

One has to bear in mind the length of fights, rules in place and how fights were scored. Fights were over 20+ rounds and were often scored on the perception of who would win were the fight to go the distance, couple that with, if not the legality but the tacit acceptance of holding and grappling and it seems obvious techniques and tactics would be tailored to fit this. You only have to watch Prizefighter now, fights are between novices but are often a very fast pace, is this because these novices are super fit hercules characters, of course not they fight faster because the fight is shorter. Does it not stand to reason were the fight so much longer the pace would be more pedestrian, seems obvious to me.

As for the fight would probably lean towards Greb but it is no given. As windy has already said Fitz was an excellent body puncher and as Benny Leonard stated and Tunney proved the best way to beat Greb was to beat the body, if Fitz could do this and get to a point where Greb provides a stationary target he certainly has the power to take Greb or any middleweight out. Given his record and technique would still favour Greb in a one off fight but anyone who thinks Fitz is an easy nights work for any middle ever is delusional.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:That's a little bit of an extreme example, but I do think in some instances it's probably not as far from the truth as some people would have you think.

I can imagine carnival fighters with bales of hay to make a ring out in some field somewhere in the middle of no-where and watching them duke it out in a stick em up stylie, until one of them fell.

I can imagine fat, poorly conditioned, lumbering heavyweights, hugging and groping their way round the ring displaying rudimentary skills until one of them runs out of gas and collapses, panting for breath.

Or I could just watch Chris Arreola and Sam Peter.

BALTIMORA wrote:In the early, early days I believe the rules were that a round continued until one man was knocked down, at which point he'd be given a brief break. So yeah, not a million miles from the truth. I'm sure if I'm wrong some helpful soul will point it out. There was...I think it was Sullivan-Kilrain, where the fight was...well, to quote Wikipedia:

"it looked as if Sullivan was going to lose, especially after he vomited during the 44th round. But the champion got his second wind after that, and Kilrain's manager finally threw in the towel after the 75th round"

I think that says a lot about the differences between then (1889)and now.

Balti, I will admit now that I haven't read the whole thread but I do know a bit about the Sullivan v Kilrain fight and everything I have read indicates that both fighters, John L in particular, were in tremendous shape for this fight. It was in the broiling Mississippi heat and lasted well over 2 hours. Now for me, I have never had a bare knuckle brawl in my life, but I can imagine that, despite periods of grappling and "resting", that it would take everything out of you, even to the point of vomitting! I take your point about things been very different back then, but for their time they were awesome fighters and shouldn't be treated too harshly.

I think it is just the ignorance of some posters, and I am not including you in this at all, towards their "skills" that rub some people up the wrong way. Personally, I fail to see how some of the absolute garbage that is floating around the heavyweight division now are any more skillful than the old timers, whenever that may be.

Lovely to see another debate ruined by those with no knowledge

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lovely to see another debate ruined by not everyone agreeing with me

Fixed.

Scott, do you spent your whole time on here hit and running?

Calling Fitzsimmons an alcoholic would tend to back up my assertion that certain posters haven't got a clue but do carry on

No I don't.

If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you'd be able to prove people wrong rather than simply saying "You know nothing, I'm staying out of this now."