Willard-Hopkins

[Goodnight, Irene]

"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" - Observer

I refer you to RayLaw's post. Some of your own medicine (reading what others have written) is in order, mate.

[DaveV17]

edit

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

DF, Ken Norton started boxing much earlier than Willard and he had a pretty extensive amateur career. No comparison. Willard walked off of a farm, turned pro at 29 and became champion because he was big. That would not happen in any modern era.

If you want to compare Willard to a Toughman competitor or to other boxers of his era that is fair. To compare him to Hopkins is silly.

--- Dave, you're confused.

Ken did box in the marines with a fine 24-2 record, but he was too busy being a marine to pursue that extensive amateur career you made up.

You reveal a distinct bias for people not of the modern American urban rat culture. Joe Frazier walked in off the farm. George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Joe Louis, born and raised on farms. Many Latino/Cubano champs come from rural backgrounds. Construction backgrounds like Glen Johnson and others is another rich source.

Some of the most intelligent, hardworking, and creative people I've ever met were raised on farms.

Now you claim a toughman knocked out one of the most widely acclaimed boxers in history because toughman was big? Makes boxing out to be a weak sister, don't you think? Gee, would have thought there would be a rush of big toughmen to the ranks to throw out all those pipsqueaks, so what happened?

You're right, comparing Willard to Pops is ridiculous. Pops couldn't KO JJ in a million and one reincarnations, but folks mosey on in to say silly, giggly things to amuse us.

Must've fallen off the turnip truck in downtown Brooklyn.

[DaveV17]

edit

[Goodnight, Irene]

"--- Dave, you're confused.

Ken did box in the marines with a fine 24-2 record, but he was too busy being a marine to pursue that extensive amateur career you made up..."

"...Must've fallen off the turnip truck in downtown Brooklyn." - Broughton

[HomicideHenry]

Willard was a tough, powerful man. His size, though a benefit to him, was also a hinderance. He would set guys up with a jab, then follow with an uppercut, and that was basically all he had. Hopkins, Calzaghe, anyone with movement about them, could have probably decisioned him, if they kept their distance for the most part. This was a man who broke one man's neck in the ring, after all, and he is often forgotten as being a decent body puncher as well.

Unfortunately his 6'6" 245 pound frame, wasn't built for speed or defense, as Dempsey shown, he could be easily countered. But I dont think B-Hop could have knocked him out. Only elite power punchers at heavyweight, could have done the job.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

From watching Willard on video he looks terrible. If he is athletic, or has skills, he hides them well.

--- Dave, really now, there's 10x the video footage of Ali looking worse than horrible. Or Tyson. Or Evan Field.

If ol' Pops is athletic or has any skills other than running to the ropes, potshotting and headbutting, I've yet to see them revealed in any consistency. Now he did look exceptional against Pavlik. Where he pulled that out from, I can't say. Probably embarrassed by his performance against SuperJoe as a real executioner properly should be..

Willard's set up and leaping right hand KO of Johnson is more athletic and skilled than can be found in the whole of Pop's career.

It matters for naught if you like it or not. They're out to win a fight under the conditions. Foreman's trainers used to whip him into a dehydrated frenzy before fights because they didn't want him to box, they wanted the big wide swinging KO that fed the bulldog.

Dave, it's boxing's dirty little secret. Sometimes skills gets KOed. All styles beat the other under the right conditions. Lot's of wonderfully skilled and athletic fighters never won a title....FACT.

[HomicideHenry]

^^^I agree with this assumption

Under the right circumstances, rules, conditions, any man could beat any man.

[Robinson]

Mr Granberry

You know how I dislike to disagree with you, but I personally...quite obvisouly
feel that Willard is not the spectacular as a fighter.

I know that say, Primo Carnera is often compared to Willard, but I feel carnera
would defeat Willard well...

How do you feel Harold Johnson would do against Jess Willard ? He is of similar
dimensions as Bernard Hopkins, except unlike Hopkins he had to fight at HW so
as to make the good money.

I personally feel that Harold Johnson would do pretty good against Willard,
he would do alot better than Hopkins in my often argued against opinion :)

Kym

[Robinson]

Willards KO over Jack Johnson is less impressive than Kevin McBrides
over Tyson...the only difference is that it took Willard longer and it
as for a title.

[Robinson]

In regards to norton..he was also from a pretty competitive football (yank)
as well was he not?

Alot of modern HW for example come from pretty decent athletic back grounds
in other sports...Shavers, Grant, Lewis, etc.

So a lack of decent amateur credentials in some aspects was made up for
a previous life in other sports.

Frazier did not walk from the farm, as such in the aspect that Willard did...
to my understanding Willard was selected like so many others as an answer
to the dark man holding the worlds HW title.

He was from a class of tough men, ruffians, wrestlers and strong arm battle
royale combatants that looked the part and were eager to mix it up.

Willard was obviously one of the biggest and best of such men, who did what
others never got to do...or fell short of doing. He beat a tired, out of shape
past his prime Johnson...who was doing ok until he ran out of steam in a
LOOOOOOONG fight before he was KOd by a good right hand that landed
flush from a bigger, stronger, YOUNGER man.

Jack Dempsey, an aggressive, small, but ripped terror, showed Willard no respect
and decimated him..which perhaps a Sam Langford, Sam McVeay even just
maybe a Tommy Burns all may have done had they met that Jess Willard
when they were at their best.

[dempseyfire]

DF, Ken Norton started boxing much earlier than Willard and he had a pretty extensive amateur career. No comparison. Willard walked off of a farm, turned pro at 29 and became champion because he was big. That would not happen in any modern era.

If you want to compare Willard to a Toughman competitor or to other boxers of his era that is fair. To compare him to Hopkins is silly.

Norton did have an amateur background but it was not extensive. Willard also had a limited ,amateur background. As for your contention that he was awful and lacked any athletic talent, it simply shows that your ability to discern and critique any handcranked film pre-1930 is completly non-existent. There were a plethora of big HWs during the White Hope era and most didn't come close to being HW champion.
Why troll boxers of the past forums with your stupid assertions that the old timers all sucked? It's tiring and old. At least Robinson will come from a stance of attempting to learn, even though despite any evidence thrown his way he remains stubborn in his prior convictions.

[Robinson]

Thats not entirely true DF....

I am here to put forth my opinion, and I can be convinced.
Its just for the most part you have not convinced me on most
matters that we dis agree on.

Though do not take my dis agreeing with you as anything personal
I do enjoy our forum conversations.

We atleast both agree on the awesomeness of Larry Holmes ;)

As for dave, I dont think he is a troll. He just has not been convinced
from the EVIDENCE he has seen with his own eyes...yes the poor
film quality, which is all we have.

Having said that, one should not assume that what we can not see
is a superiority...just as it should not be assumed that it is worse
than what we can see (if the makes sense ?).

The trouble for most modern guys is we can see ALL of their fights,
yet the old timers we see samples...and we only have romantic anecdotes
to go by.

I do believe the sport has evolved, but I also believe that hard work,
style, natural abilities and good technique does sometimes transcend
era's.

Joe Louis, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Charley Burley for example
are men, that we can see on film that never fail to impress with their
abilities, skills and technique.

That is the position I tend to 'try' to come from.

BUT..I am trying my best to watch as much as I can, but I take words
written by say men like Bert Sugar, etc with a pinch of salt. I would
rather watch and read the words of fighters.

[HomicideHenry]

"I could have fought with anyone", I believe Willard was stated as saying in his later years. I always got the impression he was a racist and a straight up asshole, but I honestly believe he probably feared no one in his time, and guys like Louis, Marciano, etc who would have beaten him, he would not have backed down from either. I reckon that counts for something, but then again, if I was offered a million dollars to fight one of the ATG's I dont think I would pass it up either.

[Robinson]

No one would pass it up. $ makes most of us brave.

Fighters punish themselves for glory yes...but $ is a
great incentive also.

I think most fighters, have the same attitude as Willard
they have to. self belief is so important, when your a
success many applaud it, but when you are not or you
are mediocre people write it off as arrogance.

If you were you in 1988, and some one said $1m to fight
Tyson....would you say no ? I would do it. I know I would
get KO'd....so what....I get paid and to meet Mike Tyson :)

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Willard was selected like so many others as an answer
to the dark man holding the worlds HW title.

He was from a class of tough men, ruffians, wrestlers and strong arm battle
royale combatants that looked the part and were eager to mix it up.

Willard was obviously one of the biggest and best of such men, who did what
others never got to do...or fell short of doing. He beat a tired, out of shape
past his prime Johnson...who was doing ok until he ran out of steam in a
LOOOOOOONG fight before he was KOd by a good right hand that landed
flush from a bigger, stronger, YOUNGER man.

--- Do you also come from the class of modern gossips who make up wild rumours about Brittney, Paris, Brad, and Jolie?

Are there any ranked heavies who ever lived who could've kept the filmed pace of Johnson through 27 rds? Only Jeffries, Sharkey, Corbett, Jackson, McVea, and Jeannette ever went past twenty rounds other than Johnson/Willard that I can recall. In most all, the fights turned terribly sloppy somewhere between 20-30 rds as the fighters grew weary.

Johnson was in fine shape, there was no 100 degree heatwave of the millennium that day in Cuba, and Willard used his jab, sapped the King of the Clinch with clinches, and kept leaned back, fighting off the back foot for most of the fight, biding his time. You chaps complain about video quality, but the film clearly shows the calculating eye of the assassin as Jess sets up the final dramatic sequence.

Johnson did the selecting my friend, not that ethereal "Da Man," code for the villainous GREAT WHITE that choreographs every machination possible against people of colour. Do you really believe Da Man would pick Tony Ross, Battling Jim Johnson, Moran, or Fireman Flynn to actually defeat Johnson? Or a pair of skinny middleweight types like Ketchell/Obrien?

Sure, the "white" press beat a drum for Jeffries to come out of retirement, but it was Rickard's incredible $uper$illy money offer greater than Jeff's career earnings that rousted him from his 6 yr hibernation. Do you realize how much money was made on the poor sods who believed what they read in the press of Jeffries' invincibility at such an advanced age and poor condition and placed their bets?

Here are the real contenders NOT selected by Johnson during his title reign where JJ goes 5-0-2, 2KOs over a 7 yr period, book ended by Burns and Willard.

1. Langford, 54-6-8 during this period including 7-0-2, 3 KO of Johnson's self selected title opponents. Coloured champ.

2. Jeannette, 75-10-6 and 5-0-2, 0 KO. Coloured heavy champ.

3. McCarty, 19-4-1 and 4-0-0, 2 KO, 1 NC against Willard. White heavy champ.

4. McVea, 30-5-4 and 3-0-1, 1 KO. Coloured heavy Champ.

5. Wills, 24-3-2. Coloured heavy champ.

6 Carpentier, 71-9-4, EBU/White heavy champ.

The top 4 have a collective 19-0-5, 6 KO against Jack's self selected title opponents. All were title holders and 5/6 are HOFers.

Edit: Langford adding in wins over Johnson's title opponents before and after JJ's reign finishes 13-0-3, 5 KO. Think about that!

Had Johnson been fighting the above men during his reign, any on his day could've dethroned Johnson given the weaknesses demonstrated by Johnson against Obrien, Ketchell, Battling Jim. Just prior to winning the title, Johnson was beat by both Hart and Jeannette whom he never fought again, so it's not like Johnson was this mythical, invincible fighter at any point in his career.

Sure, Johnson was older, but not nearly so shop worn as the above men who were much more active in this period. Willard was only 3 yrs younger, much less experienced, and had more ring rust coming into the fight than Jack. Jack figured on easy money to chop down a giant hayseed and got surprised by his resilience and ability which included use of his formidable stamina and strength. It's with much mischievous irony I note Johnson's attitude mirrors your own.

The dismissal of these fighters by notions of modern superiority of fables is ridiculous. These fighters came up hard, not padded Olympic records on top of pro wrapped in cotton development phase before stepping up. They developed techniques that worked well under the extremely harsh conditions of their day.

Everyone of them has the capacity to be contenders and champions today and to cross out the eyes of Pops executioner style and think nothing of it. NOW, we're finally sorted.

[The Great John L]

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.

You failed to mention that Willard did not once trip over his own feet, and that his jab actually looks pretty decent.

Oh yes, try watching the last two rounds of Lewis-Klit, one of the more highly acclaimed HW fights of this century and convince yourself that they are both exhibiting great stamina, skill and coordination.

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.

That was hardly my point, but I didn't think that you would understand. It was more along the lines of the general conditioning of people, and how few even partake of any physical activity. Law of averages... get it?

And no, my father did not live on braised meat and boiled potatoes, but I guess I should have expected such a comment. He also didn't eat much in the way of fast foods or sugary and high fat treats either.

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.

Yes, they are quite evident in virtually all sports. Unfortunately boxing no longer attracts very many, if any, of the worlds top athletes as it did in prior years. If you choose not to recognize this, or don't understand this I guess that's your choice.

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.

I don't think anyone on this thread said any such thing.

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.

You might want to watch some more of the older fights. Sometimes "clinching" becomes more like mugging. "Modern" refs would most likely not allow the type of fighting done in the clinches of many of the early 20th century fights.

[harrygreb]

i hold my hands up as i may have said hopkins beats willard in 10 rounds. i must add that a KO was not in my thinking here just a ridiculously large points advantage and willard finding it tuff to hit hopkins with anything meaningful, prompting the ref to call a halt.

[Robinson]

Broughton,

Thank You...greatly appreciated.
At 225lbs, was Johnson in as good a shape as he was
at say 208 when he faced Jeffries ?

John L,

Off course in them good ole days people lived so much better,
they worked an honest day, ate well and healthily and were
so much fitter.

These days, everyone is fat, obesse, sits behind a computer
and shirks.

Though interestingly in the developing world where they work
so hard, and live under such harsh conditions, they never
seem to match the west in most sports?

Since Ali the world of Boxing has become a disgusting TV sport
that has lost its ways, has produced fat and undeserving champions
that get paid way too much and who lack the secrets of
conditioning that men like Sullivan, Willard etc knew and were
adherers to.

I thanks you good sir for sheding lights on my ignorance.

Have a good new years and it is greatly appreciated.

Willard TKO 1 Tyson.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Broughton,

Thank You...greatly appreciated.
At 225lbs, was Johnson in as good a shape as he was
at say 208 when he faced Jeffries ?

--- Boxrec has been tampering with the record of Johnson since I've first used it. Nobody knows his true weight apparently, as he was listed as 205 not too long ago against Willard. I've seen 190+ listed against Jeff also.

Fact: he went 27 rounds at a good pace. Best performance we've ever seen from Johnson on tape save the finale, even better than Jeff since there was less clinching by him.

He was many years removed from the Jeff fight and past the traditional best, but coming off a very active 20 rd defense against Moran which he repeats in spades against Jess, a Pops masterclass against Pavlik that unravels after more than twice the rounds. Think about it.

[Robinson]

Indeed

[Robinson]

Mr Gran....er sorry Broughton

I have not known too many people that have thought Johnson
to be anything but 'over the hill' when he faced Willard.

The fact that Johnson was able to do so well for so long is
testament to Johnsons pride and abilities. The fact that
Willard did land that shot after so many rounds and that
Johnson could not get up is also testament to Willard's youth
and ability to throw a well timed right hand.

I understand you are a fan of the great Willard.
May I pose two other hypotheticals for you ?

Billy Conn vs Jess Willard >
Harold Johnson vs Jess Willard>
or
Les Darcy vs Jess Willard/ (which in fact was a very real
fight that may have happened)

Thank you

[ben geoghegan]

What is this sillyness? Willard beats him. Nothing on Hopkins record indicates he could tangle with a fighter - a large frame man - well over 200 lbs. I guess the closest similarity today would be Hopkins vs a Lou Savarese. Willard KO's him, and Calzaghe, and Segundo Mercardo, who dropped HOpkins. These fighters are no where near his size. Gunboat Smith is no comparison, the guy has ham sized fists, he's rawboned 180-190, but he's a big guy. Hopkins is not. He's tall. Come on, make this interesting.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I understand you are a fan of the great Willard.

--- I'm a fan of boxing, fairness, history, and logical analysis.

Most boxing fans are just that and no more. Might as well be talking about the Teddy Roosevelt presidential administrations to a two year old, or talking politics to a republican or democrat. They're either too immature or limited to use of only half their brain because they hate the other half and can't see it's all the same stupid nonsense in a different package.

The fact that you ascribe some kind of great youthful advantage to Willard when he's only 3 yrs younger than Johnson pretty much stamps the limits of your fairness and logic.

Willard never gets proper credit for the win because of the whole racist notion of a great white hope that he was forced to bear, that and Johnson lying about throwing the fight.

[Robinson]

3 years age difference....

but all those years of hard fights from the age of 16-17 Globe trotting
as a contender takes it out of a fighter no doubt...

yet Willard who turned pro at 29-30 ? Was relatively 'young' in the
ring as such.

Speaking of the great Rough Rider...they are making a new movie about
him soon. Hopefully they do not mess it up.

all the best.