Posted: 05 Jun 2004, 16:05
I know most thought he was an inept fighter. That's fine and I agree with them- I was never saying Williard was a great champion. But many sports-writers TODAY are saying/have said the same things about Vitali-he is also slow, open defense etc. I have seen nothing that suggests Vitali is in another class other then Williard. They guy has made his claim beating a bunch of old guys in horrible condition (ok Kirk was realitvely young but he was in HORRIBLE condition) and has shown himself very vulnerable in two of his exorted performances (Sanders, Lewis). Williard may have lost to Vitali in the 100 yrd dash but he was never wobbled until the Dempsey fight (when he was 38 and had been inactive for 2 years against an all time great in his prime) and, contrary to most giant sized fighters, got stronger as the bouts went on. He got that from growing up hauling hay in the Kansas summer. I don't care what 'high tech' Ivan Drago training regimen Vitali has with Fritz Sdunek, he'll [/i]never have Williard's endurance or stamina. And until I see Klitschko really excell in other departments, he's in Williard's ballpark.6 Pack wrote:gensu3k1, exactly!
Dempseyfire, you mention sportswriters from that era commenting on WIllard's jab. Have you read what else they say about him? For every good thing they say about his technique the is some thing bashing him as slow, basic, inactive, easy to hit, etc.
I seen that Dempsey fight, you really were impressed with ol' WIllard in that fight? Can I imagine VItaly doing better in that fight? I can't imagine him doing much worst.