BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Vitali is easy to hit? While I don't consider him particularly quick or agile, he uses his physical advantages as well as any HW in history, and in general is a pretty tough target to hit with a clean shot.

I'm more in the camp that Willard is probably slightly under-rated toady, but he certainly didn't use his size to the same effect that either Klitschko does. While I don't think his physical abilities were much different than the Klitschkos, he lacked their experience and training.

While the talent in boxing has dropped significantly, and the number of trainers is a fraction of prior decades, I think tall HWs have a training advantage today because there are more of them and therefore more effort put into developing styles that take advantage of height and size. There weren't many trainers 100 years ago who worked with 6-5+ HWs.

That's a good post, but as always for me, it's difficult to overstate the significance of Klitschko positively putrid opposition. Such a large proportion of his success can be attributed to this factor.

Yes, his opposition is bad, but it's pretty hard to imagine any HW in history having an easy time with his jab, slap and clutch style. Most have a hard time with that style without it being used by someone that's a half a foot taller.

He's still 0-1 against the only world-class foe he ever met (or will meet in all his life, for that matter), though. That's a real sore point for his supporters, as well it should be.

He had his chance & blew it.

The Great John L wrote:Vitali is easy to hit? While I don't consider him particularly quick or agile, he uses his physical advantages as well as any HW in history, and in general is a pretty tough target to hit with a clean shot.

I'm more in the camp that Willard is probably slightly under-rated toady, but he certainly didn't use his size to the same effect that either Klitschko does. While I don't think his physical abilities were much different than the Klitschkos, he lacked their experience and training.

While the talent in boxing has dropped significantly, and the number of trainers is a fraction of prior decades, I think tall HWs have a training advantage today because there are more of them and therefore more effort put into developing styles that take advantage of height and size. There weren't many trainers 100 years ago who worked with 6-5+ HWs.

Well, look at what happens he fights someone who actually throws a decent amouint of punches. Sanders had nothing left hands and hit him constantly. He didn't even have a jab or anything else to set it up and Klitscho could not do anything to avouid being hit.

Aggressive guys like Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano, and Tyson would jump all over him.
Anyone one with decent jab would out jab him. They would hit him and easily get out of the way before he could counter. A prime Ali and Holmes could shut him out.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He's still 0-1 against the only world-class foe he ever met (or will meet in all his life, for that matter), though. That's a real sore point for his supporters, as well it should be.

He had his chance & blew it.

My definition of a “world class” fighter is one who is rated in the top 10 of their division for multiple years, and has beaten at least a few other fighters rated in the top 10. By that definition, the HW division of the past decade has very few “world class” fighters, but I would certainly say that Byrd is a “world class” opponent, and possibly Peter and Sanders. A prime Briggs would also be close, but the one VK beat was not anywhere near his prime.

So… If we are conservative, I guess I would say he is 0-2 against “world class” HWs. Being generous, he’s 2-2.

Of course that’s a discussion more of his accomplishments. I would still say that his “jumbo Calzaghe” style would have been very difficult for just about any HW in history.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well, look at what happens he fights someone who actually throws a decent amouint of punches. Sanders had nothing left hands and hit him constantly. He didn't even have a jab or anything else to set it up and Klitscho could not do anything to avouid being hit.

Aggressive guys like Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano, and Tyson would jump all over him.
Anyone one with decent jab would out jab him. They would hit him and easily get out of the way before he could counter. A prime Ali and Holmes could shut him out.

I would think that yes, Dempsey, Frazier and Marciano would be very aggressive and that's probably the best style to use against either Klitschko. Tyson really wasn't quite the high volume punching machine like the the others and I really think the size, jab and relatively high punch output of Vitali would have been a major problem for Tyson. In fact, all 4 of those you mention would have had a difficult time. It's not like any of them had much experience with well schooled 6-7 guys with a relatively high punch output.

And no, Vitali never fought guys exactly like them either, but he does know how to use his size advantage, and it's probably safe to say that 6+ inch height advantage and 30-60 pound weight advantage would give him some physical advantages to exploit.

I love how Willard suddenly equals Vitali. Willard would've been absolutely battered by both Peter and Arreola and would've been turned into a joke by Gomez.

John Galt wrote:Ezzard,
Berbick, Bruno, Tubbs, Coetzee, Weaver were all good fighters who would be legends today if they came along with their skills in the time of Jess Willard. Willard looks like a low level Toughman competitor/novice amateur in all of the video I've seen.

VK has boxed since he was young. Just because he is tall and Willard was tall doesn't make them the same or even similar. I not only don't think Willard would be a champ in the 80s (with exactly the same skills he had in his prime), I don't think he'd be a contender either.

Appreciate your opinion, John. I know some people feel the same as you so I tried to make this a relative discussion.

The argument about boxing's improvement or otherwise is not what I'm getting at here. Let's take it that, for you, Willard in the 1980s would have been training in a gym with these guys and would be competing on the same terms.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think Willard and Kltischko are very similar fighters. Both were big, decent power, good chin. Both are slow, easy to hit and have little overall boxing ability.

Neither were as good as the the alphabet soup champs of the 1980s (Witherspoon, Berbick, Coatzee, Thomas etc.) The alpha champs were inconsistent and could be beaten on an off night. However, generally Willard and Klitcshko would have lost.

Willard would probably have some WBS title if he was fighting today. Klitschko may have beat a way past his prime Johnson.

The only guy who Vitali wouldn't have beaten of Holmes' opponents was Witherspoon (likely) and he nearly beat Larry.

The Klit boys would have reigned in the 1980s due to their professionalism, application and consistency, if nothing else.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I love how Willard suddenly equals Vitali. Willard would've been absolutely battered by both Peter and Arreola and would've been turned into a joke by Gomez.

Honestly, Diamond, I don’t see it.

I tend to think that Willard would win close, hard-fought, fights with Peter and Arreola and I wouldn’t back either of them against the old tubby Johnson who Willard beat. They’d be more out of condition than Jack was!

Put it this way, Riddick Bowe is a helluva lot more deserving of a place in the IBHOF than Jess Willard.

donnellon wrote:Willard is becoming over-rated not under-rated IMO. Aside from the Johnson win, a decent performance despite having everything stacked in his favour, he did nothing that an average top ten contender wouldn't do. Pelkey was poor and Morris too was terribly over-rated in his time.Moran was ok. a one punch artist, top ten in his time at best. Gunboat and Tom McMahon beat him easy and the McCarty fight was pretty even(A decent performance).
He would be no more than a competitive contender in most periods. Over 15/20 rounds I think Hart, Burns, Braddock, maybe Carnera beats him.

I don't know man. If you don't worry so much about the names on the record and just look at the film objectively, you might reach a different conclusion. If you cue up Willard's fights against Johnson and Moran, and then take a look at what film is available of Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Burns, and even skip up to guys like Carnera, Baer, and Braddock, I submit that you would hesitate to put a whole ton of money on any of those guys, including Baer (who I think is as over-rated as Willard is under-rated), against Big Jess, especially if the fight is scheduled beyond 15 rounds.

My humble opinion, gentlemen.

Seamus wrote:Put it this way, Riddick Bowe is a helluva lot more deserving of a place in the IBHOF than Jess Willard.

Notwithstanding my conviction that Willard is severely under-rated, I agree with this post 100%. Bowe, too, is under-rated, IMO.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I think Willard and Kltischko are very similar fighters. Both were big, decent power, good chin. Both are slow, easy to hit and have little overall boxing ability.

Neither were as good as the the alphabet soup champs of the 1980s (Witherspoon, Berbick, Coatzee, Thomas etc.) The alpha champs were inconsistent and could be beaten on an off night. However, generally Willard and Klitcshko would have lost.

Willard would probably have some WBS title if he was fighting today. Klitschko may have beat a way past his prime Johnson.

The only guy who Vitali wouldn't have beaten of Holmes' opponents was Witherspoon (likely) and he nearly beat Larry.

The Klit boys would have reigned in the 1980s due to their professionalism, application and consistency, if nothing else.

Professionalism? For Wladimir, you mean like not knowing what to do when hurt (Sanders) being exhausted in 5 rounds (Brewster) ?
For Vitaly you mean like quitting, not knowing how to avoid a punch, not having any footwork?
Consistency? I will give you that one for Vitaly. He is consistently mediocre.
Consiostency for Wladimiri? Wladmir was knocked out by 3 different guys (and almost by Peter) who have done little esle in their career.

The only opponent of Holmes that vitaly kltischo would not have beat was Witherspoon? Seriously?
You would bet on Klitschko against Ken Norton? No way that would have happened.

I would bet on Shavers, Berbick, Cooney, Smith, and Mercer against Kltischko. Weaver, Snipes, Bey and Williams would have a serious chance against him. Holmes was 10-0 in those fights. Klitschko would have been lucky to go 4-6.

Ambling Alp wrote:You would bet on Klitschko against Ken Norton? No way that would have happened.

I would bet on Shavers, Berbick, Cooney, Smith, and Mercer against Kltischko. Weaver, Snipes, Bey and Williams would have a serious chance against him. Holmes was 9-0 in those fights. Klitschko would have been lucky to go 4-5.

With all due respect, I would love to take that action. In my opinion, VK would have had ZERO trouble with David Bey, Renaldo Snipes, Ray Mercer, or Carl Williams, and only a little trouble with Roy Williams, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith, or Trevor Berbick.

Ken Norton, Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, and Tim Witherspoon would have been tougher orders, especially 'Spoon, but I like VK's chances against them too.

I do think Holmes waxes him big time though.

Willard would have lost to Johnson and Dempsey and Holmes.

So he doesn't belong in the top 20 of all time... I'd have him in my top 35 though.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I think Willard and Kltischko are very similar fighters. Both were big, decent power, good chin. Both are slow, easy to hit and have little overall boxing ability.

Neither were as good as the the alphabet soup champs of the 1980s (Witherspoon, Berbick, Coatzee, Thomas etc.) The alpha champs were inconsistent and could be beaten on an off night. However, generally Willard and Klitcshko would have lost.

Willard would probably have some WBS title if he was fighting today. Klitschko may have beat a way past his prime Johnson.

The only guy who Vitali wouldn't have beaten of Holmes' opponents was Witherspoon (likely) and he nearly beat Larry.

The Klit boys would have reigned in the 1980s due to their professionalism, application and consistency, if nothing else.

Professionalism? For Wladimir, you mean like not knowing what to do when hurt (Sanders) being exhausted in 5 rounds (Brewster) ?
For Vitaly you mean like quitting, not knowing how to avoid a punch, not having any footwork?
Consistency? I will give you that one for Vitaly. He is consistently mediocre.
Consiostency for Wladimiri? Wladmir was knocked out by 3 different guys (and almost by Peter) who have done little esle in their career.

The only opponent of Holmes that vitaly kltischo would not have beat was Witherspoon? Seriously?
You would bet on Klitschko against Ken Norton? No way that would have happened.

I would bet on Shavers, Berbick, Cooney, Smith, and Mercer against Kltischko. Weaver, Snipes, Bey and Williams would have a serious chance against him. Holmes was 10-0 in those fights. Klitschko would have been lucky to go 4-6.

Wow! He beats up guys like Bey, Williams, Smith, Weaver and Snipes now.

I agree with Mr E. Vitali loses to Holmes. But he'd fight evenly with the best of the rest and would cream most of the others.

Most 80s HWs were gassed after throwing their first one-two.

Why do so many people think that Witherspoon was so much better than the rest of the alphabet soup champs of the 1980s? Witherspoon would not have been the only one to beat Klitschko.

Witherspoon was 1-1 vs Smith.
Witherspoon lost to Thomas.
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Snipes
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Tubbs.
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Williams.

These guys all have some talent. They were all inconsistent. Sometimes they were very good, and sometimes they were mediocre. However, that is better than always being mediocre, which Vitaly Klitschko has been.

Williams didn't have a good chin, but he was a good boxer with a great jab. Not hard to imagine him outboxing V Klitschko.

Weaver showed that he had power, was aggressive and could box a little.
Snipes was an awkward fighter who made people look bad.
Smith was smart and could box and punch some.
Bey could box and fight some.

They were gassed after throwing a one -two? Well they all had many fights that went the distance.
These guys aren't going to just stand there, not throwing punches, waiting to be hit like most of Klitschko's opponents.

There is not one guy who Klitschko would likely "cream" He doesn't even cream some of live bodies that he has fought.

Cooney and Shavers would probably blow him away. They hit much harder than anyone Klitschko has ever faced, and were more active.
Ray Mercer at his best would have whipped him. Mercer gave Holyfield and Lewis very tough fight (should got the decsion vs Lewis) when they were close to their best.

No way in the world that he would fight evenly with Ken Norton. That is just silly to think that.

Just what is it that Klitschko can do? Can he box? No. Can he punch? a little, but nothing special. Does he have good footwork? No. Does he have good head movement? No.

Smith could punch some!? He was a very hard puncher.

I have to agree that the top 80's alphabet guys were all pretty close, although I wouldn't put Bey in with the other guys you listed.

My view is that it is difficult to rate the 1980s fighters because, as a generation, many of the better ones did not consistently train hard and come to fight, and many suffered from substance abuse issues. I don't know why that was but it seems to be an historical fact.

I think there were several guys from that era who had a ton of talent and could potentially have become, but did not become, truly great fighters. Specifically (alphabetical order): Gerry Cooney, Michael Dokes, Greg Page, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, and Tim Witherspoon.

In contrast, there were a group of guys who were more disciplned, better conditioned, and more consistent, who could beat the fighters in the first group when they were off their games but could not beat them at their best (also alphabetical order): Trevor Berbick, Frank Bruno, Gerrie Coetzee, Bonecrusher Smith, Renaldo Snipes, Mike Weaver, and Carl Williams. (Williams and Snipes were maybe a half step behind the others.)

At his best (i.e., the day he fought Holmes), Witherspoon may have had the most talent of all. He really impressed me that night and I thought, look out -- this guy is only going to get better and he's already terrific. But, he never was that good again....

On the night he fought Larry Holmes, though, I think he would have given a lot of champions a lot of trouble.

Ambling Alp wrote:Why do so many people think that Witherspoon was so much better than the rest of the alphabet soup champs of the 1980s? Witherspoon would not have been the only one to beat Klitschko.

Witherspoon was 1-1 vs Smith.
Witherspoon lost to Thomas.
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Snipes
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Tubbs.
Witherspoon barely got a close decision over Williams.

These guys all have some talent. They were all inconsistent. Sometimes they were very good, and sometimes they were mediocre. However, that is better than always being mediocre, which Vitaly Klitschko has been.

Williams didn't have a good chin, but he was a good boxer with a great jab. Not hard to imagine him outboxing V Klitschko.

Weaver showed that he had power, was aggressive and could box a little.
Snipes was an awkward fighter who made people look bad.
Smith was smart and could box and punch some.
Bey could box and fight some.

They were gassed after throwing a one -two? Well they all had many fights that went the distance.
These guys aren't going to just stand there, not throwing punches, waiting to be hit like most of Klitschko's opponents.

There is not one guy who Klitschko would likely "cream" He doesn't even cream some of live bodies that he has fought.

Cooney and Shavers would probably blow him away. They hit much harder than anyone Klitschko has ever faced, and were more active.
Ray Mercer at his best would have whipped him. Mercer gave Holyfield and Lewis very tough fight (should got the decsion vs Lewis) when they were close to their best.

No way in the world that he would fight evenly with Ken Norton. That is just silly to think that.

Just what is it that Klitschko can do? Can he box? No. Can he punch? a little, but nothing special. Does he have good footwork? No. Does he have good head movement? No.

We’re so far away from each other on this.

These 80s contenders really plumbed the depths. They rarely looked good. Witherspoon’s defeat to Holmes was the best performance from a contender in that decade.

Cooney and Shavers would have their puncher’s chance but I just can’t see them winning.

Your asking me to believe that the best of this generation couldn’t beat David Bey. Yet you often claim eras are roughly equal.

Vitali has never looked as bad as these contenders consistently did during the 1980s.

The current crop of HWs is comparable to the 80s crop. Chris Arreola and Sam Peter are ultimate examples of 1980s heavyweights and would sit squarely amongst that group.

Some of their fights were bad. However they each looked good at times. klitschko never looks good.

Witherspoon fought close that level (of the holmes fight) in several other fights. Several of these other guys were very close to his level and arguable better.
Many of these guys had good jabs could slip punches, throw combinations, had decent footwork. etc. Klitschko simply can't do this.

Watch Cooney against Holmes. He was not the clumsy fighter people think he was.
At times Earnie Shavers looked awesome. Klitschko never looked like that.

I didn't say Klitschko couldn't beat Bey. I called that and a few others tossups.

Samuel Peter is just awful. Period. He has no defense, no conditioning, can't box, is a quitter. He supposedly can punch but really can't. He would not have been in the Top 10 in the 1980s or just about any other period of boxing.

I don't think you understand my point about eras being roughly equal. They often are not equal in a given weight class. ie- The heavyweights in a particular era may good but the featherweights are not,and Vice versa.

The 1970s had tremendous heavyweights but were not that great in some other weight classes. Overall, it seems to even out.

The last 10 years or so, the heavyweight division is probably as bad as it has ever been. However, there have some really good fighters in other weight classes.

I do agree with one thing. We are very apart on this.

Vitali style is what it is but he is winning. Tim Witherspoon may have looked better and was in many ways a more polished performer but there’s no way he’d have dominated this era. I’m a Witherspoon fan but my eyes are open to the man’s habits. He’s the best of the 80s excluding Larry and Mike and the best way to describe him is “disappointing”. Tim could conceivably beat both Klit boys and then lose to Arreola.

The Klit bros routinely win 12-0 and 11-1 against guys of Bey’s standing and stature. It wouldn’t even be close. Berbick and Snipes would follow the same pattern. Smith would have a few good moments but would be outworked over the course of the fight as his output was never that high. The muscle-bound Weaver and Bruno, as well as the big-punching Cooney, would make a fight of it but Vitali could simply absorb more than those guys and in the end his attrition punching would hurt them more than their power shots hurt him.

In the 1980s guys like Tubbs, Page, Thomas, etc… could be beaten by simply being durable and having the conditioning, determination and commitment to be able to simply outwork them. They all relied heavily on craft and in the end this was to their detriment. Vitali doesn’t have their craft, I agree, but he’d still beat them 8 times out of 10.

Ambling Alp wrote:No way in the world that he would fight evenly with Ken Norton. That is just silly to think that.

Right. VK would beat him.

Ezzard wrote:Vitali style is what it is but he is winning. Tim Witherspoon may have looked better and was in many ways a more polished performer but there’s no way he’d have dominated this era. I’m a Witherspoon fan but my eyes are open to the man’s habits. He’s the best of the 80s excluding Larry and Mike and the best way to describe him is “disappointing”. Tim could conceivably beat both Klit boys and then lose to Arreola.

The Klit bros routinely win 12-0 and 11-1 against guys of Bey’s standing and stature. It wouldn’t even be close. Berbick and Snipes would follow the same pattern. Smith would have a few good moments but would be outworked over the course of the fight as his output was never that high. The muscle-bound Weaver and Bruno, as well as the big-punching Cooney, would make a fight of it but Vitali could simply absorb more than those guys and in the end his attrition punching would hurt them more than their power shots hurt him.

In the 1980s guys like Tubbs, Page, Thomas, etc… could be beaten by simply being durable and having the conditioning, determination and commitment to be able to simply outwork them. They all relied heavily on craft and in the end this was to their detriment. Vitali doesn’t have their craft, I agree, but he’d still beat them 8 times out of 10.

Well put. The top fighters of the 1980s had plenty of talent. What they didn't have, or what many of them didn't have, was discipline.

Hey, by the way, the Pinklon Thomas - Tim Witherspoon fight was recently posted on Youtube. I watched it again the other day-- those guys were damn good when they were fit. Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw82owInuD0