It is a battle of the giants from yester year. WHo would have won?
It is a hard question to anwer as no body know how many of Primos fights were fixed. perhaps his biggest win, a KO of Sharky.
They both had alot of heart. Against Johnson Jess took a beating for 20 rounds to come back and win by KO. And Dempsey almoast killed him but he refuse to quit.
Carnera hit the deck 11 times and kept fighting against Baer.
In the end I think Willard wins. He had a good jab, stamina that was remarkable, and decent right hand.
What do you guys think?
P.S. I don't beleive in all that hype that Johnson took a dive. It was a claim by a man trying to explain away a loss.
Primo Carnera vs. Jess WIllard
-
WhiteShadow
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00
Carnera's career is shady at best. His heart can not be questioned but his punch, chin and boxing ability are all questionable to say the least.
It is well documented most of Carnera's KOs were fixs. WIllard on the other hand had a good jab, hell of a lot of heart when pushed, power to hurt any one he hit clean, and under rated boxing skills.
WIllard could be outboxed by smaller men who would offer a lot of movement (like Gunboat Smith and Luther McCarty did) but Carnera obviously was not even close to that type of fighter.
WIllard would jab him silly and rock him with right hands and uppercuts. If Willard was pumped up like when he KOed Jack Johnson, Carnera would get KOed. BUt If WIllard had one of his uninspired nights Carnera would last to the final bell, loosing a lopsided decision.
Willard had faced other big men in Carl Morris and Daily and won(newspaper decisions included). He was the best of the giants from his era, and I think from Carnera's era too.
It is well documented most of Carnera's KOs were fixs. WIllard on the other hand had a good jab, hell of a lot of heart when pushed, power to hurt any one he hit clean, and under rated boxing skills.
WIllard could be outboxed by smaller men who would offer a lot of movement (like Gunboat Smith and Luther McCarty did) but Carnera obviously was not even close to that type of fighter.
WIllard would jab him silly and rock him with right hands and uppercuts. If Willard was pumped up like when he KOed Jack Johnson, Carnera would get KOed. BUt If WIllard had one of his uninspired nights Carnera would last to the final bell, loosing a lopsided decision.
Willard had faced other big men in Carl Morris and Daily and won(newspaper decisions included). He was the best of the giants from his era, and I think from Carnera's era too.
I'll go with willard by a decision. He could punch okay when he wanted to, but "okay" wouldn't be enough to keep Carnera down. I can't see any way that either of these two guys could knock out the other one.Carnera against Baer and to some extent Louis and Willard against Dempsey..who stood right there and pounded him..again and again and again.....both showed such heart and recuperative powers that it would take a much bigger puncher than either of them to knock out the other one.
-
Irishlad69
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 09 Mar 2003, 22:04
primo's chin was the kind that would throw his whole coordination off and he'd go down when he got tagged . I just think that his getting up over and over again against Baer showed he was hard , almost impossible, to knock out. I think he was still on his feet when stopped by Louis, too.
No question about Willard's chin. I'm not sure, but I don't think he had ever been knocked off his feet before he fought Dempsey.
No question about Willard's chin. I'm not sure, but I don't think he had ever been knocked off his feet before he fought Dempsey.
If you have read teh book 'In this corner" you get a good story about Willard's chin from Gunboat Smith.
Yeah Willard had a good beard. Johnson was no cream puff puncher and he unloaded on the big guy for 20 rounds until he punched himself out!
Willard went the distance against alot of big punchers. He was stopped by Firpo when he came back in his 40's, and Rodel whom he knocked out twice in return gaining revenge.
Of course Dempsey also stopped him but Dempsey was a phenom when it came to KOs.
Not many guys can stay standing up when you are hit with a punch that brakes your Jaw, then a punch that bust your ribs, then a punch that cracks your eye socket, etc, etc.
In response to terap,
I think Johnson would have beaten Carnera. Carnera did not have the punch WIllard had. Actually his handlers later admitted Carnera could not punch much at all.
In sparring sessions with lght heavywegihts he could not hurt them. Johnson would outbox him and stop him. Carnera had a bad chin too. It was later relieved if hit in the chin he would go down.
In his career his handlers made sure no body hit him on the chin. Not in sparrig, not in real bouts. He did however get up alot.
But Johnson would pot shot him and drop him several times like Baer did and get the TKO. Johnson could punch. Carnera would not last past that 20 round assault Willard took. Not many would (WIllard had a threshold for pain).
Joe Louis would have KOed Willard. No question.
Max Baer and WIllard would have been a much tougher 'fight' than Carnera Baer. That is a hard one. Baer was tough as hell. Guys with fast hands, and ussually smaller guys who could box beat WIllard.
Baer liked to throw telegraphed bombs. Haymakers. He might catch WIllard and down him. But WIllard had a good jab and great stamina. If Max did not bomb him out it would turn into an interesting fight.
I would go with Baer. But it is a tough call. WIllard could jab his way to victory over most guys who wanted to slug.
Yeah Willard had a good beard. Johnson was no cream puff puncher and he unloaded on the big guy for 20 rounds until he punched himself out!
Willard went the distance against alot of big punchers. He was stopped by Firpo when he came back in his 40's, and Rodel whom he knocked out twice in return gaining revenge.
Of course Dempsey also stopped him but Dempsey was a phenom when it came to KOs.
Not many guys can stay standing up when you are hit with a punch that brakes your Jaw, then a punch that bust your ribs, then a punch that cracks your eye socket, etc, etc.
In response to terap,
I think Johnson would have beaten Carnera. Carnera did not have the punch WIllard had. Actually his handlers later admitted Carnera could not punch much at all.
In sparring sessions with lght heavywegihts he could not hurt them. Johnson would outbox him and stop him. Carnera had a bad chin too. It was later relieved if hit in the chin he would go down.
In his career his handlers made sure no body hit him on the chin. Not in sparrig, not in real bouts. He did however get up alot.
But Johnson would pot shot him and drop him several times like Baer did and get the TKO. Johnson could punch. Carnera would not last past that 20 round assault Willard took. Not many would (WIllard had a threshold for pain).
Joe Louis would have KOed Willard. No question.
Max Baer and WIllard would have been a much tougher 'fight' than Carnera Baer. That is a hard one. Baer was tough as hell. Guys with fast hands, and ussually smaller guys who could box beat WIllard.
Baer liked to throw telegraphed bombs. Haymakers. He might catch WIllard and down him. But WIllard had a good jab and great stamina. If Max did not bomb him out it would turn into an interesting fight.
I would go with Baer. But it is a tough call. WIllard could jab his way to victory over most guys who wanted to slug.
flex...if you get a chance look at tapes of all the fights from past eras you can. the reason "one sided' fights went on so long was not because fighters didn't punch as hard. If the reason was just getting stronger, then they'd be able to take punches better now.
The reason fights went on as long as they did, and why there are so many fighters of recent years with all those kayos, is partly..and I think mainly, because referees didn't stop fights as quickly as they do now. The only non-bootleg Zale/Graziano film available is fight number three.when Graziano getting up woozy and the long glove wiping you see now..and allowed to continue when he is out on his feet. Rocky is lucky he didn't get killed with the next shot.and this is just a minor example. Jimmy Carter had Tommy Collins down about a dozen times in one round (don't have the data at hand to be exact), both Zale/Graziano first fights would probably be stopped now...and the eventual winner would now be the loser. Of course, the Dempsey/Willard massacre wouldn't get half way through the first round now..assuming demspey would do the same thing under today's rules. Ike Williams looked at the referee a couple of times as he had Beau jack helpless on the ropes before the ref finally stopped it. so many more examples. Fighters are no doubt safer today because of the quicker stoppings, and I think the change is for the better. But..there were some dramatic comebacks that wouldn't happen today. dig around for some tapes..read as much as you can about those knockouts. some are unbelievable to current day fight fans.
The reason fights went on as long as they did, and why there are so many fighters of recent years with all those kayos, is partly..and I think mainly, because referees didn't stop fights as quickly as they do now. The only non-bootleg Zale/Graziano film available is fight number three.when Graziano getting up woozy and the long glove wiping you see now..and allowed to continue when he is out on his feet. Rocky is lucky he didn't get killed with the next shot.and this is just a minor example. Jimmy Carter had Tommy Collins down about a dozen times in one round (don't have the data at hand to be exact), both Zale/Graziano first fights would probably be stopped now...and the eventual winner would now be the loser. Of course, the Dempsey/Willard massacre wouldn't get half way through the first round now..assuming demspey would do the same thing under today's rules. Ike Williams looked at the referee a couple of times as he had Beau jack helpless on the ropes before the ref finally stopped it. so many more examples. Fighters are no doubt safer today because of the quicker stoppings, and I think the change is for the better. But..there were some dramatic comebacks that wouldn't happen today. dig around for some tapes..read as much as you can about those knockouts. some are unbelievable to current day fight fans.
the nuetral corner rule was in effect with the Tunney/Dempsey fight II, and ever since so all the fights i referred to except for Dempsey/Willard had that as the rule. I stand by my statement that a major reason (not the only one) that fighters were able to continue after brutal knockdowns was because referees were slower to stop fights then.Also, the wiping of the gloves of the downed fighter was done almost perfunctorally as compared to the longer time it takes now. Another example to add to my short list...Demarco against Basillio.He had no idea where he was when the referee let him continue in the first fight..and maybe the second one as well..I haven't looked at the tape of that in a long time.
Sometimes refs let fighters go on in their home town longer, especially in a title fight giving them a chance to come back. The Collins/Carter fight is the most blatant example I can think of, and the DeMarco/Bassilio is another.
Sometimes refs let fighters go on in their home town longer, especially in a title fight giving them a chance to come back. The Collins/Carter fight is the most blatant example I can think of, and the DeMarco/Bassilio is another.
the neutral corner rule was in effect in the Baer/Carnera fight, but, as you say, it wasn't enforced. outrageously bad job by the referee who totally lost control of the fight and did nothing to stop Baer or keep him in his corner. Carnera was actually, finally, turning to the referee to say he'd had enough and Baer swatted him again while he was doing so. Ref was called on the carpet by the commisson the next day. Don't have his name handy.
the referee for the Carnera/Baer fight was the famous Arthur Donovan....major New York referee of the time and ref for most of Joe Louis' championship fights. so...his stay on the carpet before the commission must not have been a long one.Brought this thread back with this new thread about Giants fighting. ALot was said in this thread that really touches up what kind of fighters Willard and Carnera were. I think some descriptions recently posted on those two were a little generous.
Willard was tough as hell, but did not threw combos and use upperbody movement like the big men of today. Carnera was fragile, and could not punch very well. Both men were beaten good and plenty by smaller men.
WIllard was out boxed by 170 pound Gun boat Smith over 20 rounds. Can picture Gunboat outboxing a modern Giant like Lewis or Vitaly?
No disrespect to WIllard though. During his time he was the best big man. It is kind of unfair to compare guys who fought almost 100 years apart. Our knowledge about training athletes and such is so much greater. The sport has moved along a great deal.
Willard was tough as hell, but did not threw combos and use upperbody movement like the big men of today. Carnera was fragile, and could not punch very well. Both men were beaten good and plenty by smaller men.
WIllard was out boxed by 170 pound Gun boat Smith over 20 rounds. Can picture Gunboat outboxing a modern Giant like Lewis or Vitaly?
No disrespect to WIllard though. During his time he was the best big man. It is kind of unfair to compare guys who fought almost 100 years apart. Our knowledge about training athletes and such is so much greater. The sport has moved along a great deal.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
I dis-agree. I would put a good amount of money Gunboat Smith outboxes Vitali similarly like he did to Williard. If you look at film of Williard and Vitali, they are VERY similar fighters-Vitali has more athleticism and upper body modbilty but Williard had a harder punch and better stamina. Williard could also fight on the inside, something Vitali does not know how to do (and both didn't throw many combos-what does Vitali throw other then the one-two?)6 Pack wrote:Brought this thread back with this new thread about Giants fighting. ALot was said in this thread that really touches up what kind of fighters Willard and Carnera were. I think some descriptions recently posted on those two were a little generous.
Willard was tough as hell, but did not threw combos and use upperbody movement like the big men of today. Carnera was fragile, and could not punch very well. Both men were beaten good and plenty by smaller men.
WIllard was out boxed by 170 pound Gun boat Smith over 20 rounds. Can picture Gunboat outboxing a modern Giant like Lewis or Vitaly?
No disrespect to WIllard though. During his time he was the best big man. It is kind of unfair to compare guys who fought almost 100 years apart. Our knowledge about training athletes and such is so much greater. The sport has moved along a great deal.
Williard KOs Primo before the 8th. Williard had an extroadinary wallop, and I'd rank him as one of the top 10 punchers of all time. Read any of the accounts of that time-Williard's uppercut could fall buildings.
I have read plenty on WIllard. He did not Move like Vitaly. His punches did not flow like VItaly. Most discribe WIllard as slow and fairly unimaginative with his attacks. He basicly used his height and reach to jab his way to victory over much smaller opponents, and would catch them with uppercuts if they came in.
Sure he was tough, and the best of his time, but to say he fought like vitaly! Where are you getting that from? I have read the books and seen the footage, most of the writings are not that generous. He was outboxed several times in his career by much smaller men. He rarely got decent win streaks, and his management had to protect him by keeping him inactive before the Johnson fight as he was vulnerable (You read that?)
Chris Byrd could not outboxed Vitaly!!! When was the last time you saw VItaly get a boxing lesson from an opponent?
Gunboat Smith beat VItaly!!! My friend, there is not a light heavyweight alive that could beat VItaly. I don't see Gun boat doing it. Gunboat finished with a 59-36-10 record. He was KOed a dozen times by much smaller and less athletic men than VItaly.
Smith was a decent fighter for his day, but he was not a phenom. Image how the boxing people would react should a light heavyweight beat VItaly today! It would be huge! THe light heavyweight would have to be amazing. SMith was not amazing, he was good. Nothing he did in his life time indicates he was capable of defeat a man of Vitaly's capabilities and size who fought nearly a hundred years after he did.
I agree with you WIllard would KO Carnera. I agree WIllard was a very good fighter for his time and so was Gunboat. But that is all I agree with you on in this subject I am affraid.
Sure he was tough, and the best of his time, but to say he fought like vitaly! Where are you getting that from? I have read the books and seen the footage, most of the writings are not that generous. He was outboxed several times in his career by much smaller men. He rarely got decent win streaks, and his management had to protect him by keeping him inactive before the Johnson fight as he was vulnerable (You read that?)
Chris Byrd could not outboxed Vitaly!!! When was the last time you saw VItaly get a boxing lesson from an opponent?
Gunboat Smith beat VItaly!!! My friend, there is not a light heavyweight alive that could beat VItaly. I don't see Gun boat doing it. Gunboat finished with a 59-36-10 record. He was KOed a dozen times by much smaller and less athletic men than VItaly.
Smith was a decent fighter for his day, but he was not a phenom. Image how the boxing people would react should a light heavyweight beat VItaly today! It would be huge! THe light heavyweight would have to be amazing. SMith was not amazing, he was good. Nothing he did in his life time indicates he was capable of defeat a man of Vitaly's capabilities and size who fought nearly a hundred years after he did.
I agree with you WIllard would KO Carnera. I agree WIllard was a very good fighter for his time and so was Gunboat. But that is all I agree with you on in this subject I am affraid.
Willard vs. Carnera? Willard has better skills, better punch, and better chin--Willard likely KOs Carnera. Not too hard to figure. But I don't think this says much for Willard. I would pick Claman "Sandman" Parker to KO Carnera, too.
I'm not sure where the Willard hyperbole comes from. The press of the day said he could fell buildings? That's been said about hundreds of fighters. The question is, how many solid opponents did he fell? Not enough for me to think of him as one of the most powerful punchers of all time, and a lot of his KOs were in later rounds, suggesting that accumulation was a factor rather than a single terrific shot.
I'm not ready to rank Vitali as an all-time great just yet, but as a fantasy match-up, based on overall skills, I would pick him over Willard.
I'm not sure where the Willard hyperbole comes from. The press of the day said he could fell buildings? That's been said about hundreds of fighters. The question is, how many solid opponents did he fell? Not enough for me to think of him as one of the most powerful punchers of all time, and a lot of his KOs were in later rounds, suggesting that accumulation was a factor rather than a single terrific shot.
I'm not ready to rank Vitali as an all-time great just yet, but as a fantasy match-up, based on overall skills, I would pick him over Willard.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Currently we have two light HWs about to campaign at HW (Jones Jr and Tarver) and I think if either fought Klitschko, Vitali would be the favorite but not by too much- def not approaching a Buster Douglas type 'no chance' washout. Smith wasn't flawless, but in his prime few could beat him, and I comfortably say he was better than Antonio Tarver . . .6 Pack wrote:I have read plenty on WIllard. He did not Move like Vitaly. His punches did not flow like VItaly. Most discribe WIllard as slow and fairly unimaginative with his attacks. He basicly used his height and reach to jab his way to victory over much smaller opponents, and would catch them with uppercuts if they came in.
Sure he was tough, and the best of his time, but to say he fought like vitaly! Where are you getting that from? I have read the books and seen the footage, most of the writings are not that generous. He was outboxed several times in his career by much smaller men. He rarely got decent win streaks, and his management had to protect him by keeping him inactive before the Johnson fight as he was vulnerable (You read that?)
Chris Byrd could not outboxed Vitaly!!! When was the last time you saw VItaly get a boxing lesson from an opponent?
Gunboat Smith beat VItaly!!! My friend, there is not a light heavyweight alive that could beat VItaly. I don't see Gun boat doing it. Gunboat finished with a 59-36-10 record. He was KOed a dozen times by much smaller and less athletic men than VItaly.
Smith was a decent fighter for his day, but he was not a phenom. Image how the boxing people would react should a light heavyweight beat VItaly today! It would be huge! THe light heavyweight would have to be amazing. SMith was not amazing, he was good. Nothing he did in his life time indicates he was capable of defeat a man of Vitaly's capabilities and size who fought nearly a hundred years after he did.
I agree with you WIllard would KO Carnera. I agree WIllard was a very good fighter for his time and so was Gunboat. But that is all I agree with you on in this subject I am affraid.
Smith had a stiff punch and fought offensively-Byrd does/has neither.
I don't understand how you can look at their films and see very different fighters. Both have the same stance, legs spread, left arm extended (although Vitali's is prob. more extended). Both relied heavily on the left jab to set up their punches. I don't say how after watching the film you can say Vitali has a better jab than Williard. Williard also threw uppercuts and hooks in the inside-does Vitali do this? You keep aludding that Vitali must be better b/c he's fighting 90 years later but when watching the film I see Vitali having less of an arsenal than Williard. Is Vitali more athletic then Williard?-yes. Better stamina-no. Bigger punch-Williard had 1 punch KO power-Klitschko does not. And Williard did not just beat up on smaller guys-he beat 6'4 'the champion that never was' Luther McCarthy when both had similar fighting experience, who it's also written had a great left jab. He also was fighting a deep field with guys in fantastic condition. Vitali's two big wins came over guys who were in deplorable condition.
Don't get so flustered. Just look at my pts and tell me what I'm wrong about.
I though I was looking at your points and telling you what was wrong. You say look at the fight footage and read the writings of that era about WIllard. I am telling you I have done both plenty over the years and I gave you the impression I got. By most boxing historians WIllard is considered one of the weakest heavyweight champions boxing has had. I personally think WIllard is under rated and had a letter published in RIng magazine speaking out on WIllard's behave.
But even though I like WIllard a lot, I have to keep a realistic view about him.
Then you said Gunboat would beat Vitaly. So I stated I disagreed and why. He came forward did he? SOund like a good idea against Vitaly, who out weighed him by 75 pounds and hits as hard as he does? Check Smith's KO percentage.
What can I say, I will gain no ground with you when you are convinced Smith could beat our current heavyweight champion. And Tarver will be ranked higher than SMith as well by boxing historians I would imagine.
Looking at your new points...sources say Luther got the better of their no-contest, outboxing Willard. I am sure you will find a source or two saying the contrary, but over all the opinion was Luther won that one.
I have stated my findins on WIllard (books and footage) several times and what the general consensus was. If you can look at the same material and gather something different than we are once again at a stand still.
BTW I knew we would disagree on this once I saw your name (Dempseyfire)
But even though I like WIllard a lot, I have to keep a realistic view about him.
Then you said Gunboat would beat Vitaly. So I stated I disagreed and why. He came forward did he? SOund like a good idea against Vitaly, who out weighed him by 75 pounds and hits as hard as he does? Check Smith's KO percentage.
What can I say, I will gain no ground with you when you are convinced Smith could beat our current heavyweight champion. And Tarver will be ranked higher than SMith as well by boxing historians I would imagine.
Looking at your new points...sources say Luther got the better of their no-contest, outboxing Willard. I am sure you will find a source or two saying the contrary, but over all the opinion was Luther won that one.
I have stated my findins on WIllard (books and footage) several times and what the general consensus was. If you can look at the same material and gather something different than we are once again at a stand still.
BTW I knew we would disagree on this once I saw your name (Dempseyfire)
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Alright 8) . I guess we'll agree to dis-agree. But read this:6 Pack wrote:I though I was looking at your points and telling you what was wrong. You say look at the fight footage and read the writings of that era about WIllard. I am telling you I have done both plenty over the years and I gave you the impression I got. By most boxing historians WIllard is considered one of the weakest heavyweight champions boxing has had. I personally think WIllard is under rated and had a letter published in RIng magazine speaking out on WIllard's behave.
But even though I like WIllard a lot, I have to keep a realistic view about him.
Then you said Gunboat would beat Vitaly. So I stated I disagreed and why. He came forward did he? SOund like a good idea against Vitaly, who out weighed him by 75 pounds and hits as hard as he does? Check Smith's KO percentage.
What can I say, I will gain no ground with you when you are convinced Smith could beat our current heavyweight champion. And Tarver will be ranked higher than SMith as well by boxing historians I would imagine.
Looking at your new points...sources say Luther got the better of their no-contest, outboxing Willard. I am sure you will find a source or two saying the contrary, but over all the opinion was Luther won that one.
I have stated my findins on WIllard (books and footage) several times and what the general consensus was. If you can look at the same material and gather something different than we are once again at a stand still.
BTW I knew we would disagree on this once I saw your name (Dempseyfire)
Fleischer (1949 pp 159 160) in speaking of the McCarty-Jess Willard bout (August 19 1913) recorded, "Luther was by all odds the best-looking prospect among the white heavyweights, and it was generally expected that Willard would be beaten. McCarty rushed from the start ... Suddenly, McCarty smashed a right over Willard's left eye that stung Jess and galvanized him into a momentary outburst of anger."
The New York Times (August 20, 1912) wrote describing the bout, "Jess Willard, the Texas heavyweight, shaded Luther McCarty of Springfield, Mo., over the ten-round route at Madison Square Garden last night, offsetting the aggressiveness of the latter ..." [with jabs and uppercuts].
It added, "Willard's great height and reach had McCarty baffled in the first two rounds, but in the next two the Westerner tore in at a clip that gave promise of an easy victory, if not a knockout. Willard came back strong, however, in the later rounds of the bout ..."
And SMith:
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/gunboat.htm
He had a short prime but his resume far exceeds Antonio Tarver any day of the week.
THose reports don't really say who got the newpaper decision. Atleast not those quotes.
In "Going the distance" Author Murray Greig says Luther got the newspaper decision from the publications of that time.
As for WIllard's fighting ability here is what I found...
From Nat Fleischer (Founder of RIng Magazine) 's book An illustrated Boxing History described WIllard "Jess was no boxer. He was an ungainly fighter", "slow moving", and then went on to say "His size, more so than his fighting qualities, plus shrewd management, got him the shot at the title."
He stated WIllard took a lot of punishment in his title winning effort against Johnson, and was easy to hit. Johnson punched himself out and then got punched out (no fix).
He then stated "It is a paradox that WIllard, one of the poorest of the heavyweight champions, should have taken the crown from one of the greatest".
Papa Jack, Jack Johnson and the era of the white hopes by Randy ROberts
wrote of WIllard "As a boxer he was severly handicapped by poor defensive techinique and slow hands and feet; but he was as good as, perhaps better than, most of the other White Hopes." WHich is what I have stated. He was good for his day but not the fighter giants of today are.
ALso from that book, "After a checkered career that included more than a score of unimpressive victories and a few equally unimpressive defeats, he knocked out two fighters in quick succession. It was at that point that he challenged Johnson, but rather than press his luck and ruin his modest string of victories, he withdrew from active boxing. THis enraged other fighters whose managers proclaimed Willard "no better qualified to fight for the title than the average spermaceti whale"."
Looking at WIllard's record, it is easy to believe his management did fear he might loose again if he fought a decent contender and loose his title shot aswell. THat is why WIllard won two fights in a row after getting "whipped" as Nat Fleischer put it by Tom McMahon and then did not fight for a year until his title shot.
In "going the distance" this was written of WIllard, Willard launched his ring career with a series of dull victories on the midwest barnstormig circuit. His huge stature made him a popular draw, but he rarely showed much ferocity and lacked the smooth natural ability of many of the other White Hopes. Still WIllard's big punch was enough to earn him a following..."
That being said footage of WIllard was found from some fights that had previously thought to be lost. On the footage Willard is said to have not been as robotic as some historians led to believe. They did not say he looked like Vitaly Klitschko in there, but he was a fair boxer.
Enough about WIllard though, we both know where we stand on him and have probly both read all the different views on him.
Smith over Tarver...
Comparing their records Tarver does not look bad at all. Tarver had a great amateur run and was one of the best in his division. His amateur run can not be forgotten.
As a pro he has beating Reggie Johnson (two division champion), Eric Harding (solid contender), Montel Griffen (former champion), had a war with Roy Jones, and then KOed ROy Jones in the rematch (Jones being the most gifted fighter of our time and an all-time great. May though Jones to be unbeatable, atleast at light heavyweight.)
Tarver is currently the light heavyweight champion of the world and has yet to face a man he could not beat.
I pick Tarver over Smith.
BTW if you like SMith, you would love his interview in "In this Corner". You may have already read it, it is a pretty popular book. SMith is one hell of a character. His life story is straight out of a movie!
P.S. I think we are opposites when choosing who would win with modern fighters and past fighters. I tend to go with the modern fighters, you with the oldies. I got a feeling we will be meeting quite a bit in this boxers of the past forum
. I love the White Hope era boxers too. Very thick feild of heavyweights, if for no other reason because every able body man got into the game (albiet for the wrong reasons). A large talent pool in that time. Those that made it to the top had to be good.
In "Going the distance" Author Murray Greig says Luther got the newspaper decision from the publications of that time.
As for WIllard's fighting ability here is what I found...
From Nat Fleischer (Founder of RIng Magazine) 's book An illustrated Boxing History described WIllard "Jess was no boxer. He was an ungainly fighter", "slow moving", and then went on to say "His size, more so than his fighting qualities, plus shrewd management, got him the shot at the title."
He stated WIllard took a lot of punishment in his title winning effort against Johnson, and was easy to hit. Johnson punched himself out and then got punched out (no fix).
He then stated "It is a paradox that WIllard, one of the poorest of the heavyweight champions, should have taken the crown from one of the greatest".
Papa Jack, Jack Johnson and the era of the white hopes by Randy ROberts
wrote of WIllard "As a boxer he was severly handicapped by poor defensive techinique and slow hands and feet; but he was as good as, perhaps better than, most of the other White Hopes." WHich is what I have stated. He was good for his day but not the fighter giants of today are.
ALso from that book, "After a checkered career that included more than a score of unimpressive victories and a few equally unimpressive defeats, he knocked out two fighters in quick succession. It was at that point that he challenged Johnson, but rather than press his luck and ruin his modest string of victories, he withdrew from active boxing. THis enraged other fighters whose managers proclaimed Willard "no better qualified to fight for the title than the average spermaceti whale"."
Looking at WIllard's record, it is easy to believe his management did fear he might loose again if he fought a decent contender and loose his title shot aswell. THat is why WIllard won two fights in a row after getting "whipped" as Nat Fleischer put it by Tom McMahon and then did not fight for a year until his title shot.
In "going the distance" this was written of WIllard, Willard launched his ring career with a series of dull victories on the midwest barnstormig circuit. His huge stature made him a popular draw, but he rarely showed much ferocity and lacked the smooth natural ability of many of the other White Hopes. Still WIllard's big punch was enough to earn him a following..."
That being said footage of WIllard was found from some fights that had previously thought to be lost. On the footage Willard is said to have not been as robotic as some historians led to believe. They did not say he looked like Vitaly Klitschko in there, but he was a fair boxer.
Enough about WIllard though, we both know where we stand on him and have probly both read all the different views on him.
Smith over Tarver...
Comparing their records Tarver does not look bad at all. Tarver had a great amateur run and was one of the best in his division. His amateur run can not be forgotten.
As a pro he has beating Reggie Johnson (two division champion), Eric Harding (solid contender), Montel Griffen (former champion), had a war with Roy Jones, and then KOed ROy Jones in the rematch (Jones being the most gifted fighter of our time and an all-time great. May though Jones to be unbeatable, atleast at light heavyweight.)
Tarver is currently the light heavyweight champion of the world and has yet to face a man he could not beat.
I pick Tarver over Smith.
BTW if you like SMith, you would love his interview in "In this Corner". You may have already read it, it is a pretty popular book. SMith is one hell of a character. His life story is straight out of a movie!
P.S. I think we are opposites when choosing who would win with modern fighters and past fighters. I tend to go with the modern fighters, you with the oldies. I got a feeling we will be meeting quite a bit in this boxers of the past forum
. I love the White Hope era boxers too. Very thick feild of heavyweights, if for no other reason because every able body man got into the game (albiet for the wrong reasons). A large talent pool in that time. Those that made it to the top had to be good.