Jess Willard v Wladimir Klitschko

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2007, 07:09

Two big men from different eras.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Nov 2007, 11:43

On paper Klitschko should win easily. He was far superior to Willard in several ways. He probably would be able to chop Willard down and stop him in a few rounds.

However, Willard did have three important attributes. He had good stamina, a good chin, and a decent punch. That gives him a chance against Klitschko. If he could survive the early rounds, there is a chance that Kltischko would tire out. Also, with Klitschko's chin there is always a chance that Willard could get him in trouble.

I would bet on Klitschko, but with his chin you never know.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2007, 11:51

Over 12 rounds: Klitschko on points

15 rounds: A bloody Williard scores a late stoppage.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 01 Nov 2007, 13:33

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Nov 2007, 13:54

Klitschko wins by an extremely easy 1st round ko.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2007, 14:37

DaveV17 wrote:Let's see, Willard was a big farm boy who started boxing at around 29 years old. Klitschko won an Olympic championship...

Willard probably couldn't beat Ed "Too Tall" Jones who was bigger, stronger, and much more athletic than Willard. In addition, Jones did have some prior amateur experience before he turned pro - at a younger age (28) than Willard. Willard would probably be a decent Toughman competitor in Kansas if he fought today.

I'm with Novelty Goat on this one.

You're writing "big farm boy" like the fact he grew up on a farm means he was a crap fighter. Williard's story is basically the same as Jameel McClines (limited amateur experience, late start to boxing), and McCline just came within a hair of knocking out a guy who put Wlad on his ass and made big Klit hug for 12 rounds.

You say Ed Jones was stronger and more athletic than Williad like you're some expert on Williard. How the hell do you know? I'd like to see Jones last 5 rounds let alone over 20 with Jack Johnson outside in the Caribbean heat.

Say you think Klitschko wins fine but to write just know-nothing crap about an old fighter due to your ignorance and bias is just a waste of time . . .

BigJuicyHog · Post by **BigJuicyHog** » 01 Nov 2007, 15:46

Well while we are at it, how bout Wlad vs Primo Carnera.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 01 Nov 2007, 15:59

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Nov 2007, 16:17

DaveV17 wrote:DF,
I saw Willard vs. Dempsey or at least I think it was Willard. It might have been Frankenstein. In the video, it looked like Willard had about the same quickness, rhythym, and head movement as Frankenstein and now that I think about it, he came forward with his arms away from his body, and bent at the waist while keeping his legs straight like Frankenstein moves in the movies.

Klitschko has faults, but....

DF, So you think that Jess Willard is more athletic than Ed "Too Tall" Jones? Interesting, please enlighten the rest of us. Jones was just the first player taken in the pro football draft the year he came out of college. He also performed at a high level in the NFL for many years. Probably doesn't mean anything does it? LOL.

Why would a 6'6 fighter be moving his head? He fought legs spread (and he did bend his knees, your Frankenstein talk is just bull) left down and extented similar to . . . Wlad's big brother! If you filmed Vitali Klitschko using 1919 film technology you would be saying Vitali looks like an un-coordinated oaf as well . . actually I'm sure Vitali would look worse.
Maybe Jones was more athletic, but the point is you have no way of knowing he was, you are making a statement with no backing. All those who witnessed Williard in training noted he moved well for a big man and had fast hands (the speed of his jab and one-two can be clearly seen in the Dempsey film). Also anyone who has the ability to break-in wild horses (Jess's job pre-boxing) has to have a degree of strength and agility which is impressive.

Revisionist pseudo-historians say Williard achieved success simply b/c he was big and strong, but if you study it, the White Hope era had TONS of large 6-4 to 6-7 Heavyweights who were big and strong, who went NOWHERE. Williard was one of the top White Hopes based upon his athletic ability, fair boxing skills, and incredible durability, stamina, and punching power. That is not an easy combination for any fighter to beat. Klitschko's not going to duck and weave under Jess's reach and explode like Smith and Dempsey did. Both Wlad and Jess were cautious, at-range jabbers. I think Williard would be able to surprise Klitschko with his jab, and if Wlad tried to clinch Williard one of Williard's best punches (uppercut) would catch Klitschko as he came in.

I think Klitschko probably has enough greater mobility and ring smarts to outpoint Williard in a tough fight over 12 (and the Peter fight makes me even question that, as Williard had everything Peter has plus much better stamina and size), but his stamina would fail him in a 15 rounder, and Williard would knock him out in the championship rounds.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 01 Nov 2007, 18:55

Im sorry but no. Willard loses against alot of guys...and for all of Wlad's faults he beats Willard easily.

I think Carnera beats Willard, in a tougher but damned boring and
un-skillful fight.

Sure the footage of Willard isn't the best. But its not that bad that it
clouds technique, form and skill level.

How is it that people get what they do from these films ? We have evry fight of Wlad availbale. Willard we have a few HL, yet people are experts on him and his style. From what I have seen I don't think he is that talented.

I have seen him Vs Johnson, Dempsey and Moran.

Kym

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 01 Nov 2007, 22:07

Robinson wrote:Im sorry but no. Willard loses against alot of guys...and for all of Wlad's faults he beats Willard easily.

I think Carnera beats Willard, in a tougher but damned boring and
un-skillful fight.

Sure the footage of Willard isn't the best. But its not that bad that it
clouds technique, form and skill level.

How is it that people get what they do from these films ? We have evry fight of Wlad availbale. Willard we have a few HL, yet people are experts on him and his style. From what I have seen I don't think he is that talented.

I have seen him Vs Johnson, Dempsey and Moran.

Kym

Wlad is one of the best punchers of all time and he's got very good speed and accuracy too .Wlad would give a defensively in-ept and slow moving Willard a beating.

You can also see Willard on film vs Floyd Johnson. Needless to say, what you've seen before is what see in the Floyd Johnson fight.

For a big puncher, Willard lacks KO wins over top competition, save an older Jack Johnson. A few smaller boxers beat Willard via decsion, and those who lost often went the distance with big Jess.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 02 Nov 2007, 00:16

Big Jess was/is one of the more forgotten, if not under-rated, heavyweights of the 20th century. For being considered a giant in his time, he could also fight in close. He was also known for his under-rated body attack. To say he was the best "white hope" is doubtful as he seemed lackluster against Luther McCarty, but since 'Lucky Lute' died, he was generally considered the best white heavyweight.

His career, like Marciano, Mercer and some others after him, was started late in life, beginning in exhibitions in his native Kansas. By the time he had tackled Johnson he was well into his mid 30's and by the time he fought Firpo in the "Battle of The Giants" he had been retired for a few years and nearing 40.

Not to really make it an excuse for him, but he was rather old for an athlete at the time. His courage, toughness cannot be over-stated as he took possibly the worst beating in ring history against Jack Dempsey, and also at the hands of Jack Johnson who beat and battered, knocking him down on ocassion, Willard for the first 20 rounds of a scheduled 45 rounder.

To make a more modern comparison, Willard's courage/heart whatever you wish to call it was similar to Vitali Klitschko's TKO loss to Lewis. Always game, had his spirit in full throttle. Just too many flaws. Also, what is ironic is how Willard and Vitali are relatively only known for their losses and for one big win. For Willard it was Johnson, for Vitali it was Sanders.

As for Wladimir goes...had this been 12, 15 rounds, its plausible that Willard would have lost a decision, widely. But it's also plausible that the "farm boy" from Kansas could have knocked out and sent Wladimir back to the land of Oz...oops I mean Ukraine.

The outcome looks more likely for Wladimir, but maybe just maybe if we hypothetically thought of both men fighting in the same era as Willard with the 20, 45, and beyond round fights...I think old Jess could have soaked up enough punishment to take Wladimir out in the later rounds. Just like he done to Jack Johnson.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Nov 2007, 00:50

For all of this talk about Williard being so "slow moving" guess what . . .you aren't going to get ANY trainer IN HISTORY telling their 6'6 240 lb fighter in a 20 round or 45 round fight to be bouncing around on their toes and moving around laterally like Ali. If you don't get an early KO and are a big man fighting like that your ass is grass come round 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 etc. Hell Wlad has lost twice by TKO b/c he failed to sufficiently pace himself ofr 12 ROUNDS!! One has to understand the context of the films we have of Williard. As stated I can still see from the film Williad's good reflexes at parrying and leaping back (seen in the Johnson bout) and his handspeed. And he shows good movement in the training film before the Johnson bout. He was not some clumsy oaf.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Nov 2007, 01:00

Klitschko on points.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Nov 2007, 08:04

HomicideHenry wrote: To make a more modern comparison, Willard's courage/heart whatever you wish to call it was similar to Vitali Klitschko's TKO loss to Lewis.

Willard suffered a broken jaw, cheekbone, nose and several fractured ribs against Dempsey. Vitali suffered a cut eye against Lewis. Please explain how Vitali’s courage is similar to Willard’s.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 02 Nov 2007, 11:49

Wlad has already beaten better fighters than Willard.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Nov 2007, 12:21

Alabama_Man wrote:Wlad has already beaten better fighters than Willard.

I would say the Chris Byrd Wladimir beat in 2000 is better than Willard. But due to styles the non-punching Byrd would always be doomed vs Klitschko.

As you state fighters, who else has he beaten better than Jess?

Sam Peter? Calvin Brock? Monte Barrett? Francois Botha?? Jameel McCline?

Willard beats all of those guys.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2007, 12:41

Willard is certainly better than Peter and would be a problem in that he has a punch and a decent chin. I put this fight up because of the Wlad-Peter fight. Seeing as that was no walk in the park for Wlad I wouldn't expect this to be either.

I'm not bashing either fighter. I think it's a fair match up and I thought it might put the two men in perspective.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 02 Nov 2007, 12:44

As for the posts about Ed Jones, you guys are making fools of yourselves. None-boxers never ever do well in actual boxing matches no matter how athletically gifted they are. A decent Middleweight would have beaten Ed Jones let alone a former HW world champion.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Nov 2007, 13:15

Ezzard wrote:Willard is certainly better than Peter and would be a problem in that he has a punch and a decent chin. I put this fight up because of the Wlad-Peter fight. Seeing as that was no walk in the park for Wlad I wouldn't expect this to be either.

I'm not bashing either fighter. I think it's a fair match up and I thought it might put the two men in perspective.

Agree with everything you said.

joe kurtz · Post by **joe kurtz** » 02 Nov 2007, 15:27

Sorry, but though I know I'll get a lot of heat from those who have a high opinion of boxing's good ol' "pioneer days" & it's fighters, I feel compelled to comment on this thread.

IMO, I honestly think that a more debatable outcome between Jess Willard & a modern day heavyweight would be a match up between him & let's say a journeyman/opponent-type like a Marcus Rhode. Willard might have a chance to come out on top in that one ...

Willard vs Klitschko or any other modern era heavyweight of remotely world class status? IMO that's like matching up one of today's NFL teams against the best of the old leather helmet era. Let's say the Pats or the Colts vs the old Chicago Cardinals or something similar. What do you think the result would be?

If you're one of those that believes that the old rugged, "rough & tumble" players of yesteryear would be competitive with today's NFL players because they were hard working "men's men", thhen you're likely to believe that a Jess Willard would actually be competitive against a Wlad Klitschko.

But, if you're a realist who knows that even the very best of the NFL's oldtimers would be blasted off the field by today's Dolphins or Rams teams, much less the Pats or Colts, then you also know that a match between a Jess Willard & his archaic skills vs a Wlad Klitschko would be a single round destruction victory for the modern fighter.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Nov 2007, 15:35

joe kurtz wrote:Sorry, but though I know I'll get a lot of heat from those who have a high opinion of boxing's good ol' "pioneer days" & it's fighters, I feel compelled to comment on this thread.

IMO, I honestly think that a more debatable outcome between Jess Willard & a modern day heavyweight would be a match up between him & let's say a journeyman/opponent-type like a Marcus Rhode. Willard might have a chance to come out on top in that one ...

Willard vs Klitschko or any other modern era heavyweight of remotely world class status? IMO that's like matching up one of today's NFL teams against the best of the old leather helmet era. Let's say the Pats or the Colts vs the old Chicago Cardinals or something similar. What do you think the result would be?

If you're one of those that believes that the old rugged, "rough & tumble" players of yesteryear would be competitive with today's NFL players because they were hard working "men's men", thhen you're likely to believe that a Jess Willard would actually be competitive against a Wlad Klitschko.

But, if you're a realist who knows that even the very best of the NFL's oldtimers would be blasted off the field by today's Dolphins or Rams teams, much less the Pats or Colts, then you also know that a match between a Jess Willard & his archaic skills vs a Wlad Klitschko would be a single round destruction victory for the modern fighter.

First of all I'm a classic fence sitter on this subject....but I have moments when I absolutely agree with this. Then barry will trot out here with some pretty good reasons why I should throw those assumptions out the door and I start to swing the other way.

I have always thought that the sport is evolving...still strongly suspect it, but I have been driven to being a bit quieter on the subject by those who make a strong case that in fact the old guys could focus on the subject at hand a lot easier than today's spoiled lot.

So....I think it's a good debate.....Willard may not be a great candidate to run with when using past icons but today's champion may not be the greatest example of "state of the art" currency as well.

As usual I am taking the bold stand of one who is undecided. However this debate is one of the most intriguing debates in all of boxing.

IMHO.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 02 Nov 2007, 16:44

joe kurtz wrote:Sorry, but though I know I'll get a lot of heat from those who have a high opinion of boxing's good ol' "pioneer days" & it's fighters, I feel compelled to comment on this thread.

IMO, I honestly think that a more debatable outcome between Jess Willard & a modern day heavyweight would be a match up between him & let's say a journeyman/opponent-type like a Marcus Rhode. Willard might have a chance to come out on top in that one ...

Willard vs Klitschko or any other modern era heavyweight of remotely world class status? IMO that's like matching up one of today's NFL teams against the best of the old leather helmet era. Let's say the Pats or the Colts vs the old Chicago Cardinals or something similar. What do you think the result would be?

If you're one of those that believes that the old rugged, "rough & tumble" players of yesteryear would be competitive with today's NFL players because they were hard working "men's men", thhen you're likely to believe that a Jess Willard would actually be competitive against a Wlad Klitschko.

But, if you're a realist who knows that even the very best of the NFL's oldtimers would be blasted off the field by today's Dolphins or Rams teams, much less the Pats or Colts, then you also know that a match between a Jess Willard & his archaic skills vs a Wlad Klitschko would be a single round destruction victory for the modern fighter.

Football and boxing are completely different and have completely different histories.

But while we're speaking, do you believe Jim Brown would not be a top (if not the top) running back in the NFL today? I would love to hear your explanation as to why not if that indeed is your answer.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 02 Nov 2007, 16:50

dempseyfire wrote:
joe kurtz wrote:Sorry, but though I know I'll get a lot of heat from those who have a high opinion of boxing's good ol' "pioneer days" & it's fighters, I feel compelled to comment on this thread.

IMO, I honestly think that a more debatable outcome between Jess Willard & a modern day heavyweight would be a match up between him & let's say a journeyman/opponent-type like a Marcus Rhode. Willard might have a chance to come out on top in that one ...

Willard vs Klitschko or any other modern era heavyweight of remotely world class status? IMO that's like matching up one of today's NFL teams against the best of the old leather helmet era. Let's say the Pats or the Colts vs the old Chicago Cardinals or something similar. What do you think the result would be?

If you're one of those that believes that the old rugged, "rough & tumble" players of yesteryear would be competitive with today's NFL players because they were hard working "men's men", thhen you're likely to believe that a Jess Willard would actually be competitive against a Wlad Klitschko.

But, if you're a realist who knows that even the very best of the NFL's oldtimers would be blasted off the field by today's Dolphins or Rams teams, much less the Pats or Colts, then you also know that a match between a Jess Willard & his archaic skills vs a Wlad Klitschko would be a single round destruction victory for the modern fighter.
Football and boxing are completely different and have completely different histories.

But while we're speaking, do you believe Jim Brown would not be a top (if not the top) running back in the NFL today? I would love to hear your explanation as to why not if that indeed is your answer.

Its very likely Brown wouldn't be as good. As a whole, Americans may not be healthier due to the obesity epidemic, but surely our scientific and medical breakthroughs allow the elite athletes of today to be dominant to their predecessors. Furthermore, increased population would suggest that the "cream of the crop" is stronger as well. If you brought the Brown of old into the game of today via time machine or whatever... I doubt he would have the same numbers.

BigJuicyHog · Post by **BigJuicyHog** » 02 Nov 2007, 17:11

Brown is too busy punching out Aliens to get involved with these NFL shenanigans.