Fischer would have done a lot of things different in that game, so what difference does it make if he would play for a draw at the end.
Should Black have claimed a DRAW

I don't have much experience with this kind of endgames, but I'd say accepting the draw was a good decision. In the king to king position any other move would cost you, and then with the other move the rook on the b file is necessary for the pawn. Otherwise white would be able to take the pawn for his rook later on. Leaving you with a rook and an immobilized king vs. a king with 3 linked pawns.
In my experience I wouldn't like to be black in this position, but maybe I'm wrong with this

Running through variations on the computer, black could win. White is not left with a lot of choices. Of course Kf3 makes threefold repetition, so then white can claim a draw I believe (which is in white's interest) but if Kf1 there seem to be some possibilities.

Loomis wrote:
Fischer would have done a lot of things different in that game, so what difference does it make if he would play for a draw at the end.
I just wanted to know whether i should have fought for a win after white played 52 Ke2 ..., or whether my draw claim was reasonable. I used Fischer because of his fighting spirit on the chess board, and he probably would have risked an endgame of Rook versus two (or 3) connected passed pawns, with unshakeable faith of checkmating White's King? Loomis would u have offered a draw after White played 52 Ke2? Sorry for putting u on the spot.
Fischer would never have played for a draw as Black in this position.. is my statement valid? Is there a way for black to win this game or is Black in danger of losing the
game? Please share your thoughts. Thanks.