Willard-Hopkins

[raylawpc]

John, what if Hopkins is born in 1875 instead of 1965, and trained, taught and fought in the style of those days. Same opinion?

[observer1]

John, what if Hopkins is born in 1875 instead of 1965, and trained, taught and fought in the style of those days. Same opinion?

Pretty stupid scenario though mate.

Like saying what if Frazier was trained Old school style. How would Frazier-Foreman play out?

We're not talking so hypothetical and looking at "What if?" from every angle and possible scenario.

Just a Prime Hopkins (as he was) and a Prime Willard (as he was

Besides, even IF Hopkins was born in 1875, there would not be much contrast in styles, considering Hopkins has always been a counter puncher, and relied on in-ring craftiness rather than new skills

[Goodnight, Irene]

From seeing Willard on video against Moran, Dempsey, and Johnson, Willard looks like a novice amateur fighter at best. Hopkins - Willard would be like a scenario that plays out regularly in gyms all around the world. A big guy comes in the gym, he fought a little somewhere, maybe in the military, maybe in prison. The big guy is awkward, he doesn't move well, he has bad balance. He gets in the ring with a skilled boxer. What happens next is predictable.

Hopkins, the skilled boxer, could play with Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted to.

Yes, because Bernard Hopkins has literally taken the heads off all opposition, hasn't he? Hopkins could take 6'5, 245lb. Willard any time he chooses, just as he took out natural Jr. Middleweight Felix Trinidad after twelve rounds of pounding. The same way he did in natural JR. WELTERWEIGHT Oscar De La Hoya in nine rounds. Similarly brutal KO's befell the likes of Antwun Echols, Segundo Mercado & company.

The seventeen losing opponents who went the distance with Hopkins must count their blessings his awesome power somehow didn't visit them.

Bernard Hopkins failed to KO many Middleweights, let alone take them out, "any time he wanted to." Yet, we're to believe he's going to beat Willard, a very tough man twice his size, inside the distance? Moderate-punching Light-Heavyweights whose best division is Middleweight don't knock out Jess Willard. That's reality, regardless of who you think would win.

Flying pigs, & all...

[John Galt]

Irene, Apples and Oranges. You are comparing skilled boxers to a farm worker who became a boxer in his late 20s because he was big. Skilled boxers have defensive skills that make them difficult to knockout.

If Dickie Ryan or Tim Tomashek had been born in 1880 and had the skills they had in the 1980s they would have dominated in the Willard era and guys like you would be arguing that Dickie Ryan or Tim Tomashek would beat Evander Holyfield or Riddick Bowe. Bernard Hopkins as he is could beat Willard as he was in his prime whenever he wanted anyway he wanted and it would not be competitive.

[raylawpc]

John, what if Hopkins is born in 1875 instead of 1965, and trained, taught and fought in the style of those days. Same opinion?

Pretty stupid scenario though mate.

Like saying what if Frazier was trained Old school style. How would Frazier-Foreman play out?

We're not talking so hypothetical and looking at "What if?" from every angle and possible scenario.

Just a Prime Hopkins (as he was) and a Prime Willard (as he was

Besides, even IF Hopkins was born in 1875, there would not be much contrast in styles, considering Hopkins has always been a counter puncher, and relied on in-ring craftiness rather than new skills

No, actually its like saying what if Frazier was trained in the Old School. How would Frazier-Jack Johnson play out?

Its my thread; I started it, so guess I can make it as hypothetical as I want. If you don't like, you don't have to contribute.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Irene, Apples and Oranges. You are comparing skilled boxers to a farm worker who became a boxer in his late 20s because he was big. Skilled boxers have defensive skills that make them difficult to knockout.

If Dickie Ryan or Tim Tomashek had been born in 1880 and had the skills they had in the 1980s they would have dominated in the Willard era and guys like you would be arguing that Dickie Ryan or Tim Tomashek would beat Evander Holyfield or Riddick Bowe. Bernard Hopkins as he is could beat Willard as he was in his prime whenever he wanted anyway he wanted and it would not be competitive.

I wonder how many rounds Jeffries would last against Hagler?

LOL.

[Robinson]

Seeing as Joe Choynski was not much bigger than Hagler. Or the fact
that Hagler is almost the same size as Tommy Burns. Is most likely
as big as Sam Langford, or Les Darcy who also handled himself well
as a HW in that era.

Having said that I feel James J Jeffries is a different animal to that of
Willard. I feel Jeffries would man handle and beat Willard down, from
what I have seen of both men in their respective available fights on
film

NOw we can look at the Byrd's, Toney's etc who are MW's that fight
at HW these days, but they bulked up (fattened up) and are big men
now...even if they still have that slighter frame. Even though Chris
Byrd is almost the same size as say Corbett, Peter Jackosn, Jack
Johnson etc.

Ray...it may be 'your thread' but you did basically created the thread by quoting
me from another thread.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Bernard Hopkins as he is could beat Willard as he was in his prime whenever he wanted anyway he wanted and it would not be competitive.

--- Sam Langford would knock Pops out, KTPFO.

Easy to say with nothing but words, but you know he probably would.

Let's compare signature fights. Pops an innocuous left hook to the liver of HOFer Oscar, a fight many think Oscar threw, though replays show it did hit the sweet spot. Or pick Tito Sr tossing the towel, your choice.

Big Jess, a leaping lead right hand that dropped HOFer Johnson like a sack of rotten potatoes, a classic signature KO highlight. Many still claim Johnson threw that fight based on his word, though replays show otherwise.

Big advantage for Willard.

Both lost their 1st fight. Willard avenged his. Pops a young feller, turning pro age 23 loses his first fight and never avenges.

At the age Willard turns pro in his first efforts, Pops, already 7 yrs as a pro, wins his title in his 3rd try, gifted in a pair of fights against the tough Mercado. Willard wins his title after little more than 3 yrs experience, laying up most of his 4th yr, against a storied HOFer in Willard's first try in a legendary fight.

Huge advantage for Willard.

It's all nice to talk about Pop's superior athleticism and such, but he sure doesn't display it in his athletic prime. Nor was he weighed down with being a giant who had crushed a man to death in the ring and greatly feared repeating the performance. Since Willard was afforded with lucrative exhibition opportunities more financially beneficial than any single defense could bring with greater public accolades, he becomes a semi-retired fighter/full time performer after Johnson whereas Pops is was still scrapping for respect in the middle of what turned to be a fine run at the top.

It's obvious in spite of a very late start and promoted as a freak much like Valuev, Willard is the class early on. Let's not forget that he retires for 4 yrs after his Dempsey loss, returns at age 41 straight out to KO era contender Floyd Johnson in Yankee Stadium, setting up a bout with era KO monster Luis Firpo which he loses by KO, his last bout.

You chaps do Willard a disservice in the manner that you pick and chose. You can never match Willard against Pops save on some kiddie computer games, but we could arrange for Iron Boy to do some sparring with Pops if you want to see how Big Jess would look fitted in concrete shoes.

You see, easy to make a fighter look bad. Just ignore all context, all achievements, and pick at the bad spots and make the scab fester.

[Robinson]

Can anyone this side of Ali beat the great fighter Jess Willard I ask?

[harrygreb]

i'm with john galt on this. hopkins has simply too many smarts to ever get troubled by willard. not an even match up and probably ends before the 10th round.
i admire the sheer energy of irenes argument though.

[raylawpc]

Ray...it may be 'your thread' but you did basically created the thread by quoting
me from another thread.

Well, actually I quoted you and me from the other thread so that we could continue this discussion. And I set the parameters of the hypothetical, which I understood the author of a thread was permitted to do.

[The Great John L]

While Willard was one of the least talented of all HW champs (I don't count the many "title holders" of the past 25 years as champs), he was hardly as bad as many of the posters on this thread indicate. He actually had a decent jab and was fairly adept at rolling with punches, which is of course easier to do when you're half a foot taller than all of your opponents. The comparisons of Willard to tough guys walking in to a gym from off the street are pretty silly. And the comments of Willards limited punching and excessive holding are no more justified than the clinching in a typical Wlad fight against a breathing opponent.

Having said that, I do think that Hopkins could do reasonably well against Willard, as his safety first counter punching would be a good strategy, although it's hard to say since we have no evidence of Hopkins ability to actually hit someone who is about 6" taller than himself. I'd still favor Willard even in a 10 round fight, as I think Hopkins would have a hard time getting past Willards long reach.

[John Galt]

Apparently to "appreciate" guys like Willard, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, etc., one must forget what he sees on video and believe what he reads. When I watch most of the old timers on video I appreciate how far boxing has come over the years. It is hard to think there was a time when a person with that type skill could have been a boxing champion.

[dempseyfire]

John Galt makes a return appearance . . oh joy.

Someone please show me specifically what Vitali Klitschko does that is so superior to Willard . . as I mentioned, slightly superior footwork and defensive evasivness . . other than that Willard has the better uppercut and inside fighting abilities, superior stamina, and on the outside they are practically identical fighters.

[DaveV17]

edit

[raylawpc]

Apparently to "appreciate" guys like Willard, Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, etc., one must forget what he sees on video and believe what he reads. When I watch most of the old timers on video I appreciate how far boxing has come over the years. It is hard to think there was a time when a person with that type skill could have been a boxing champion.

Of course, most of the all-time greats from the turn-of-century up to the 1940s, look pretty clumsy and old fashioned on film. But I think it unfair to imply that these old timers who look bad on film could never have been greats today had they fought and trained under today’s system. Were he alive and fighting today, Willard would not have fought as he did in 1915.

By the same token, if Hopkins had been born 125 years earlier and been a boxer, I doubt he would have fought as he does now. He would have fought under the style he was taught in that day and time.

[The Great John L]

Of course, most of the all-time greats from the turn-of-century up to the 1940s, look pretty clumsy and old fashioned on film. But I think it unfair to imply that these old timers who look bad on film could never have been greats today had they fought and trained under today’s system. Were he alive and fighting today, Willard would not have fought as he did in 1915.

Of course, if Willard had been born into todays world he would have most likely never boxed. And if he had, using "modern" training methods he would have had a pretty good chance of ending up morbidly obese with absolutely no stamina.

[raylawpc]

Of course, most of the all-time greats from the turn-of-century up to the 1940s, look pretty clumsy and old fashioned on film. But I think it unfair to imply that these old timers who look bad on film could never have been greats today had they fought and trained under today’s system. Were he alive and fighting today, Willard would not have fought as he did in 1915.

Of course, if Willard had been born into todays world he would have most likely never boxed. And if he had, using "modern" training methods he would have had a pretty good chance of ending up morbidly obese with absolutely no stamina.

Or, like Vitali Klitschko, a body like a Greek-God and no stamina . . .

You do bring up another interesting point, I think. I think the heavyweights of yesterday were probably all-around better athletes than the heavyweights today, particularly at the turn of the century. In those days, there were only two or three professional sports that really mattered as far as making any real money: baseball, boxing and, perhaps, wrestling. Today, there are many more sports and particularly sports that don't require one to get punched in the face (at least, not as a stated part of the sport) for which you can excel and be paid handsomely.

Take Jim Jeffries, for instance. By all accounts, Jeffries was an incredible all-around athlete. But he boxed because, as he put it, he "liked the coin" - not because he loved fighting. Had he lived today, I doubt Jeff would have been a boxer. I suspect he would have found football more to his liking.

[harrygreb]

i'd put o'brien ahead of willard p4p. though neither of them are front rank guys i have to admit

[observer1]

From seeing Willard on video against Moran, Dempsey, and Johnson, Willard looks like a novice amateur fighter at best. Hopkins - Willard would be like a scenario that plays out regularly in gyms all around the world. A big guy comes in the gym, he fought a little somewhere, maybe in the military, maybe in prison. The big guy is awkward, he doesn't move well, he has bad balance. He gets in the ring with a skilled boxer. What happens next is predictable.

Hopkins, the skilled boxer, could play with Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted to.

Yes, because Bernard Hopkins has literally taken the heads off all opposition, hasn't he? Hopkins could take 6'5, 245lb. Willard any time he chooses, just as he took out natural Jr. Middleweight Felix Trinidad after twelve rounds of pounding. The same way he did in natural JR. WELTERWEIGHT Oscar De La Hoya in nine rounds. Similarly brutal KO's befell the likes of Antwun Echols, Segundo Mercado & company.

The seventeen losing opponents who went the distance with Hopkins must count their blessings his awesome power somehow didn't visit them.

Bernard Hopkins failed to KO many Middleweights, let alone take them out, "any time he wanted to." Yet, we're to believe he's going to beat Willard, a very tough man twice his size, inside the distance? Moderate-punching Light-Heavyweights whose best division is Middleweight don't knock out Jess Willard. That's reality, regardless of who you think would win.

Flying pigs, & all...

OH my word mate, stop acting immature.

Nobody us saying Hopkins would KO Willard. Most of think feel he would beat him on points pretty easily. Try reading what others type mate

[raylawpc]

From seeing Willard on video against Moran, Dempsey, and Johnson, Willard looks like a novice amateur fighter at best. Hopkins - Willard would be like a scenario that plays out regularly in gyms all around the world. A big guy comes in the gym, he fought a little somewhere, maybe in the military, maybe in prison. The big guy is awkward, he doesn't move well, he has bad balance. He gets in the ring with a skilled boxer. What happens next is predictable.

Hopkins, the skilled boxer, could play with Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted to.

Yes, because Bernard Hopkins has literally taken the heads off all opposition, hasn't he? Hopkins could take 6'5, 245lb. Willard any time he chooses, just as he took out natural Jr. Middleweight Felix Trinidad after twelve rounds of pounding. The same way he did in natural JR. WELTERWEIGHT Oscar De La Hoya in nine rounds. Similarly brutal KO's befell the likes of Antwun Echols, Segundo Mercado & company.

The seventeen losing opponents who went the distance with Hopkins must count their blessings his awesome power somehow didn't visit them.

Bernard Hopkins failed to KO many Middleweights, let alone take them out, "any time he wanted to." Yet, we're to believe he's going to beat Willard, a very tough man twice his size, inside the distance? Moderate-punching Light-Heavyweights whose best division is Middleweight don't knock out Jess Willard. That's reality, regardless of who you think would win.

Flying pigs, & all...

OH my word mate, stop acting immature.

Nobody us saying Hopkins would KO Willard. Most of think feel he would beat him on points pretty easily. Try reading what others type mate

Actually, John Galt did. he wrote that Hopkins would "play with Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted to."

[Robinson]

Hey DaveV long time no see mate...welcome back.

[The Great John L]

Of course, most of the all-time greats from the turn-of-century up to the 1940s, look pretty clumsy and old fashioned on film. But I think it unfair to imply that these old timers who look bad on film could never have been greats today had they fought and trained under today’s system. Were he alive and fighting today, Willard would not have fought as he did in 1915.

Of course, if Willard had been born into todays world he would have most likely never boxed. And if he had, using "modern" training methods he would have had a pretty good chance of ending up morbidly obese with absolutely no stamina.

Or, like Vitali Klitschko, a body like a Greek-God and no stamina . . .

You do bring up another interesting point, I think. I think the heavyweights of yesterday were probably all-around better athletes than the heavyweights today, particularly at the turn of the century. In those days, there were only two or three professional sports that really mattered as far as making any real money: baseball, boxing and, perhaps, wrestling. Today, there are many more sports and particularly sports that don't require one to get punched in the face (at least, not as a stated part of the sport) for which you can excel and be paid handsomely.

Take Jim Jeffries, for instance. By all accounts, Jeffries was an incredible all-around athlete. But he boxed because, as he put it, he "liked the coin" - not because he loved fighting. Had he lived today, I doubt Jeff would have been a boxer. I suspect he would have found football more to his liking.

Actually people in general were in much better shape because most performed manual labor all day. And no I am not saying that people were better off then, but general conditioning and stamina was gained growing up by performing strenuous work rather than going to a gym as some people now do to keep in shape. My father worked two jobs. He was a letter carrier for USPS and also worked part time for much of his life on the loading docks of a beer distributor. He loaded and un-loaded by lifting and carrying most of the time, not by using a forklift. And when he carried letters, he delivered to each door and collected mail from boxes along the way so that he walked 6-7 miles 6 days a week with upwards of of 40 lbs on his back. Sometimes it was more weight when he had to deliver the annual catalogs. Many current athletes could not do what he did nearly every day of his life. And many men worked much harder. I live in Akron, Ohio and it's pretty interesting to read about tires used to be built. Extremely hard work that probably developed incredible stamina. Of course, that doesn't mean these men could run marathons, but that's not what most athletes do. Usually it comes down to muscles getting fatigued from repetitious strenuous motions.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread, although it's frightening the level of dis-respect given to the fighters of the past when most "modern" HW's can't fight more than 2 or 3 rounds at a decent pace, and many are literally obese. And any viewing of the limited available footage of Willard shows that he wasn't the complete stumbling in-competent may in this thread claim. There are certainly enough "high;lights" from some of Wlads fights where he looks pathetic as well, but he is clearly a fairly skilled fighter. And try honestly watching the Lewis-Vitali fight. After about the first round and a half, they are both little more than slow, fatigued, stumbling giants. It was a good fight, but the level of conditioning and talent shown is hardly impressive.

[Robinson]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gpZdSNB93Mo

Willard-Moran segment...wish they had uploaded more of
the fight. I have a greater chunk of it on VHS...though from
what I recall of that it plays out much like this 4 min clip.

Pretty intense action packed stuff. Unlike watching two out of
shape over grown HW who do not know how to train proper
gas after a round or two.

On manual labour...I work on the meat industry and for the
most part lifting carcasses has not changed one bit in near
100 years. Every morning I lift near a 1000 lambs and cuts of
beef as I grade them from one chiller and lift them over one rail
to another so that they can be loaded onto a truck.

Manual, sweating labour sure....but I still have to train hard
in the gym for my fights. I also have to get good sleep (when
I can) and eat well before my fights.

Manual labour is great, but it has NOTHING to do with fight
fitness. Training and conditioning is specific. Everything we
do is specific...lifting weights is good for lifting weights,
running is good for running etc....they serve cross over purposes
sure but...simply by working a God honest 65hr week does not
make one a tough fighter on a diet of braised meats and boiled
potatoes.

The level of training and nutrition that elite athletes delve into
is incredible, whether they be cyclists, runners, or fighters.
The adavnces are their..whether people want to see them or not.

Sure HW boxing today is boring compared to some of its glory
years, but to say all fighters in the ring are talentless and under
trained is daft.

The activity levels of fighters in more modern fights are less
clinch heavy, fighters have to punch more and do less stalking...

And those that say that clinching is tiring are speaking from ignorance
in greco roman, mma and boxing (sparring) I find the hugging
type of clinch to be the best time to rest and assess. Id hug
my opponent all night long if I could get away with it.

Being active and reacting at speed is what drains you.

[dempseyfire]

John Galt makes a return appearance . . oh joy.

Someone please show me specifically what Vitali Klitschko does that is so superior to Willard . . as I mentioned, slightly superior footwork and defensive evasivness . . other than that Willard has the better uppercut and inside fighting abilities, superior stamina, and on the outside they are practically identical fighters.

DF, you are still as clueless as ever. Only you could compare the boxing skills of a guy who walked off a farm and started boxing at age 29 to a guy who has boxed his whole life, was an international caliber amateur, and made the Olympic team. Please...

Dave, you were the one who was essentially laughed off the forums previously. Please explain again how Scott Frank would've beaten anyone Ali defeated in the 1960s, that was a gem.

Amateur experience and credentials are often important, but there are exceptions. Michael Bennet and Dominik Guinn had much more amateur experience and started boxing at a much earlier age than Ken Norton, but in a pro fight they'd both be slaughtered. Willard was a very athletic guy for a big man and learned quickly. If any big strong farm kid could've walked in and been world champ Dan Daily would've been HW champion of the world.