BoxRec

JCS wrote:

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.

What scientific and medical breakthroughs? Gatoraide? Are boxers today being hooked up to machines a la Ivan Drago? If you're going to point to steroid use that's a whole 'nother topic.

I agree one could argue Brown maybe wouldn't be so dominant, b/c the talent depth of the NFL has increased overall (due to football being much more popular now than in the 1950s-60s) But remember, Brown was also running in an era before the advent of the West Coast offense and fast-strike passing offenses. Brown was facing defenses who's whole gameplan was to stop the run, and notably, him. In today's era, with more open lanes, Brown could very well put up even bigger numbers.

Regarding talent depth/population, the opposite has occured in boxing beyond the featherweight division, so the whole greater talent pool argument falls flat there.

It's a myth modern society propagates about athletic "evolution" (or evolution regarding anything. b/c we want to feel like we were better than everything before us)
If this were true, there would be no way fighters in their late 30s/40s like Foreman, Holmes, Toney, Robinson, Moore would've had the success they did at a late age, b/c the next generation with their superior skills and athleticism would've trounced them. Johnson in his 50s(!) was beating capable journeyman younger than half his age in the 1920s and early 1930s, with his often dismissed "primitive" style.

People look at films of Willard and see the hands low and seemingly akward stance and say he's a bum without thinking. Don't many super HW/tall fighters fight with their hands down today? How many times did Lennox Lewis have his left arm at his hip? Look at Vitali Klitschko . . .him and Williard have almost carbon-copy styles. Again, imagine Vitali filmed in 1919 and people would be saying he is crap.
Then think further . . .would it be feasible for such a large man to keep his hands up for 20 rounds or more? What about that man constantly moving laterally around the ring? What about conversing his energy if his opponent lasts into the 18th, 19th, 20th round?

People talk as if this men were stupid Neonderthals. These men knew a LOT about fighting. Boxing in one form or another has been around for hundreds of years. How arrogant is it to say that a crap journeyman like Marcus Rhode beats a former HW champ. Nothing confirms that. Willard was an extremely hard puncher, extremely durable, and had great stamina for a man his size, along with a great hard fast jab. What does Sam Peter have over Willard? Nothing.

JCS wrote: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.

Football is MUCH more popular now than in prior decades, so yes the fact that there are many more playing the game would suggest that the talent is much better. However, we're talking boxing on this forum and boxing is MUCH less than popular than in the past with FAR fewer fighters, so logic suggests that the talent is not what it used to be. There is no way to prove that there are less talented fighters now, but it's hard to make an intelligent argument any other way.

The Great John L wrote:

JCS wrote: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.

Football is MUCH more popular now than in prior decades, so yes the fact that there are many more playing the game would suggest that the talent is much better. However, we're talking boxing on this forum and boxing is MUCH less than popular than in the past with FAR fewer fighters, so logic suggests that the talent is not what it used to be. There is no way to prove that there are less talented fighters now, but it's hard to make an intelligent argument any other way.

And the Great John L scores a great debating point for the bygone eras. I swear I can't get a fix on this debate.

*Old school training discipline vs New Modern training methods 1 point old school IMHO

*Modern Nutrition vs Old Eating Habits 1 point New Fangled fighters IMHO

*Popularity of sport bringing in less top athletes 1 point for the neanderthals IMHO

*Less distractions and a "hungry" citizenry vs today's Playstation and Sex everywhere generation......1 Point for the old timers IMHO

*Intutitve belief that all things improve with the ability to reflect upon past bad habits, errors, inefficiency's etc. 1 Point for the modern generation.


Old timers in a slight lead on debating points.

I don't know the first thing about Grid Iron but football, in whatever way you define in in your given context, is not the same as boxing in it's evolution.

Realist talk is all well & good, but Klitschko knocking out Willard in the first round is about as unrealistic as you can get.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I don't know the first thing about Grid Iron but football, in whatever way you define in in your given context, is not the same as boxing in it's evolution.

Realist talk is all well & good, but Klitschko knocking out Willard in the first round is about as unrealistic as you can get.

Klitschko had trouble knocking out crappy Calvin Brock, and Brock wouldn't have even made a decent sparring partner for Willard.

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.

I guess when you look at it that way there is no comparison, but then again the Klitschko cut was about as brutal a thing you will see ever in this era of fights getting called off early. Had LaMotta or other men fought today with the same style they had before, but rules of today, the ATG's would more than likely have alot of TKO losses, as their style more or less was to take alot of punishment only to come on strong in the later rounds.

As far as the continuing argument that the guys of today could beat the older guys because of new methods of training and dietary supplements and the like; the only thing I have noticed is that in the olden times men had greater stamina, endurance and were arguably tougher....as time has progressed it seems technique and speed has gotten better, but the stamina, endurance and toughness seems to have slowly diminished.

Evander Holyfield was a great advocate of the belief that new-age training was enough to have beaten the old guys, but then again he was also quoted as saying if you took Joe Louis, Marciano, etc into today with all the new technology that they probably would have defeated the guys of today.

Myself I don't see how taking creatine, extremely high levels of protein, working out in bizarre ways like Lyle Alzado and other athletes have done with gurus like Billy Blanks (like James Toney did recently when he fought Peter for the second time) are garunteed locks that the new guys could beat the old guys.

The difference in my mind is that the old guys knew that they only had three to four years to get to the top and another four on the way down, and took as many fights as possible to keep in shape and to make their mark. Today guys train for a fight, then sit out for six months and re-train. There's no comparison, the older guys obviously had the greater work ethic and desire.

dempseyfire wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I don't know the first thing about Grid Iron but football, in whatever way you define in in your given context, is not the same as boxing in it's evolution.

Realist talk is all well & good, but Klitschko knocking out Willard in the first round is about as unrealistic as you can get.

Klitschko had trouble knocking out crappy Calvin Brock, and Brock wouldn't have even made a decent sparring partner for Willard.

Say what? Once Wlad opened up, he hurt Brock and dropped him face first with shot that sent ripple wave effects through Brock's body. Klitschko did not have trouble knocking out Brock, and let's be honest here, Brock is not a statue in the ring like Willard was. He has good defense.

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I don't know the first thing about Grid Iron but football, in whatever way you define in in your given context, is not the same as boxing in it's evolution.

Realist talk is all well & good, but Klitschko knocking out Willard in the first round is about as unrealistic as you can get.

Klitschko had trouble knocking out crappy Calvin Brock, and Brock wouldn't have even made a decent sparring partner for Willard.

Say what? Once Wlad opened up, he hurt Brock and dropped him face first with shot that sent ripple wave effects through Brock's body. Klitschko did not have trouble knocking out Brock, and let's be honest here, Brock is not a statue in the ring like Willard was. He has good defense.

Why did it take Wladimir 6 ROUNDS for him to "open up"?? . . .Williard knew how to parry punches and had good reflexes, I have no doubt he had better defense than Brock, whose defense just sucks. You say Willard was a "statue" . . I presume alluding to Jess's lack of lateral movement. Show me where in Brock-Wlad Calvin starts moving around laterally on his toes and get back to me.

This is another example of a negative regarding film. It seems that some people are basing much of their opinion of Willard on the Dempsey fight. However, this is one fight, and probably isn't very indicative of Willard's ability as a fighter. Willard was 37 years old and hadn't fought in almost 3 years when he fought Dempsey. Of course he got destroyed by Dempsey. So would Klitschko in that situation.
If the only fight that saw Wladimir Klitschko fight was the Corrie Sanders fight, you wouldn't think Klitschko was any good at all either.
Willard certainly was no legend. However the evidence is there that he wasn't a stiff. Just the fact that he won a fight in 26 rounds in the hot sun shows something. Many good fighters (including Klitschko) struggle to go 12 rounds in an temperature regulated arena.
Klitschko proabably would win this fight. However, any fighter with a decent punch (which Willard had) has an outside chance against Klitschko. Add the fact that Willard had good chin which may enable him to survive for a while and the fact that he had good stamina, it's apparent that Willard would have a chance.
Willard wasn't a great fighter; however he was a heck of a lot better than a "toughman contestant".

And what kind of champion was he that he had not fought in nearly 3 years at the time to of the Dempsey fight, negative film or not, that in-activity is disgusting. Was there no challengers in this 'golden era' of HW fighting, that he could beat the 'negro' champion and secure the championship for all of white America in 1915 that he needs not defend it until another white boy, in Dempsey comes along in 1919 and tears it from around his waist. Two title defences in 1916..oh wow look out.


How many times did Mike Weaver defend his 'alphabet' strap I wonder..or how about that Ernie Terrel ?

I agree we all have not seen enough of the Willard bouts to truely judge, whther our opinions are positive or negetive. I have seen three Willard fights and well I am not to convinced from what I have seen to judge him that special.

Kym

dempseyfire wrote:

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.

Says who? Jess Willard beat a bunch of jobbers and has one big name on his entire resume in a 26 round dance a thon fight. Wlad, Sam Peter, and Brock would hurt Willard.

Robinson wrote:And what kind of champion was he that he had not fought in nearly 3 years at the time to of the Dempsey fight, negative film or not, that in-activity is disgusting. Was there no challengers in this 'golden era' of HW fighting, that he could beat the 'negro' champion and secure the championship for all of white America in 1915 that he needs not defend it until another white boy, in Dempsey comes along in 1919 and tears it from around his waist. Two title defences in 1916..oh wow look out.


How many times did Mike Weaver defend his 'alphabet' strap I wonder..or how about that Ernie Terrel ?

I agree we all have not seen enough of the Willard bouts to truely judge, whther our opinions are positive or negetive. I have seen three Willard fights and well I am not to convinced from what I have seen to judge him that special.

Kym

Keep in mind long stretches of inactivity for champions was accepted at the time. It isn't in today's fight game (& I have a hard time understanding why it ever was) but at that time, Willard wasn't doing anything considered dramatically out of the ordinary.

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.

Problem with this argument is that it's like me claiming to be more intelligent than say Einstein because he didn't know how to use a mobile phone or a DVD player. So what if he came up with a great theory I can look it up on Google anytime I want to.

Alabama_Man wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

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.

Says who? Jess Willard beat a bunch of jobbers and has one big name on his entire resume in a 26 round dance a thon fight. Wlad, Sam Peter, and Brock would hurt Willard.

1.Willard had more than one big name on his resume. Luther McCarty,Carl Morris, and Frank Moran were all top contenders.

2. The comment about the Johnson fight is silly. Do you seriously think Klitschko,Peter, or Brock could last 26 rounds in the hot sun? They have enough trouble lasting 12 rounds with air conditioning. Willard took a lot of punishment in the Johnson fight and hung in there and won the fight.

3. Wlad,Peter, and Brock would hurt Willard? Well, Brock couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag much less hurt Willard. Peter is supposed to be a huge puncher, the only problem is that he can't ever knock anyone decent out.
As mentioned before Klitschko should be able to beat Willard, but Willard would have a serious chance. Anyone that can punch at all has a chance against Klitschko, and given Willard's chin and stamina it's conceivable that he could hang in there and knockout Klitschko.

Ambling Alp wrote:Frank Moran were all top contenders.

You know nothing about boxing. Frank Moran was a face first bum who kept his hands right around his stomach and winged wide punches. Wladimir would have 6 inches of height, and about 40 pounds on this guy and would have little trouble knocking him out in 2 rounds. Jess Willard couldn't do it in 10.

Of course, I've actually seen Frank Moran fight unlike you.

Alabama_Man wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Frank Moran were all top contenders.

You know nothing about boxing. Frank Moran was a face first bum who kept his hands right around his stomach and winged wide punches. Wladimir would have 6 inches of height, and about 40 pounds on this guy and would have little trouble knocking him out in 2 rounds. Jess Willard couldn't do it in 10.

Of course, I've actually seen Frank Moran fight unlike you.

Thanks for the classy comment regarding one part of 3 points that I made countering your previous statements.
How many minutes of Moran's 69 fight career did you see?

Just because Jess Willard didn't knock him out doesn't mean that he wasn't a top contender. He was. Klitschko would Just because you think that Klitschko would stop Moran in two rounds doesn't mean that Klitschko would destroy Willard that easily.

If Ross Purrity (who never knocked anyone else decent), Corrie Sanders (who never knocked out anyone else decent), and Brewster (whose next biggest ko is over an old Golota) can knockout Klitschko it's not that far fetched that Willard could do it as well. If Willard didn't land a haymaker it's still very likely that with his ability to take punishment that he would last several rounds with Klitschko, which is my main point.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:To believe that Willard could beat Wlad, I would have to believe that there are men today, nearly 30 years old who could start training with no other boxing or athletic training, and become heavyweight champion. I don't see that happening. It isn't impossible, but it isn't likely.

Then, I add in the limited amount of video (unimpressive) I have seen of Willard. He looks stiff, he has no rhythym, and he just doesn't look like a world class fighter.

When I consider Willard's boxing background, and the video (admittedly limited) that I have seen, I have to think that Willard would be closer to Toughman or midwest club fighter level than world class level if he was fighting today. Willard vs. Butterbean, or Willard vs. Dickie Ryan might be interesting, but Willard vs. Wlad looks like a masacre.

Jameel McCline who turned pro at 26 with even less amatueur experience than Willard had at 37 kicked Sam Peter's ass.

How you could say he looks any more stiff than Vitali Klitschko just reeks to your bias. Even Wladimir lacks real fluidity and fights pretty stiff himself. I've already explained why in the film we have Willard wouldn't be using much movement but if people want to continually gloss over my points and say crap like "Willard would be a Toughman fighter today" I guess they will regardless of the facts staring them in the face.

Put Wladimir in a 20 round fight and he'll be moving as much as my dead cat. Then you could say he fights stiff too and is a mid-west club fighter . . .

edit

DaveV17 wrote:DF wrote "How you could say he looks any more stiff than Vitali Klitschko just reeks to your bias."

I never did say that, maybe that is your opinion that slipped out?

DF also wrote:"I've already explained why in the film we have Willard wouldn't be using much movement but if people want to continually gloss over my points and say crap like "Willard would be a Toughman fighter today" I guess they will regardless of the facts staring them in the face."

What facts? The FACTS about Willard are that he turned pro late in life with little experience and he looks robotic in the ring in the available video. Your claims about Willard's toughness, stamina, etc. are just your opinion. Those are not facts.

So why isn't the stiff frankenstein Vitali a bum then?? As I've seemed to say 10 times, Vitali filmed in 1917 would look almost identical to Willard. Hell, look at Vitali-Sanders and the snails pace that was fought at vs a 38 year old South African part-time boxer and you already see Vitali fighting a 12 round fight at a 20 round pace.

Opinion? Watch the 3 round slaughter that is Dempsey-Willard on Youtube and tell me his toughness and durability is an opinion. Or (if you have considerable time) watch the 17 or so rounds that are available of Johnson-Willard and state his proven stamina is just an opinion. Even in the first round vs Dempsey, Willard clearly shows fast hands and a fine jab from a big man. All of these traits alone (punching power, stamina, durability, decent reflexes and fine jab) make him a dangerous opponent vs Wladimir.

edit

Agreed. Klitschko probably would have stopped Moran, but there is no way Klitschko beat's Jack Johnson or lasts 3 rounds against Dempsey. Willard wouldn't have been crushed by Sanders or knocked out by Ross Purrity either. Yes, Klitschko was the better fighter, but this wouldn't be a cakewalk.


It never ceases to amaze how people can look at less than 2 rounds of a fighter's career and think they can make an accurrate assessment of the fighter just from that. You could take two rounds out of most fights to make someone look bad. Try 15 rounds of Tubbs-Page where almost nothing happened. How about Vitaly Klitschko-Chris Byrd jabbing at each other's gloves for several rounds?

The Willard-Moran fight has always been considered a lackluster fight. However, even in those two rounds at least you see some action. There are many fights where you don't even get that.

Btw, people that dismiss Willard should try watching the two rounds of Wladimir Klitschko's fight with Corrie Sanders. He couldn't avoid a one armed fighter, showed again that he has no chin, and showed he had no idea what to do when he got hurt. Does this mean that Klitschko can't fight at all? Klitschko certainly looks a lot worse in those few minutes than Willard does against Moran.

Ambling Alp wrote:Agreed. Klitschko probably would have stopped Moran, but there is no way Klitschko beat's Jack Johnson or lasts 3 rounds against Dempsey. Willard wouldn't have been crushed by Sanders or knocked out by Ross Purrity either. Yes, Klitschko was the better fighter, but this wouldn't be a cakewalk.


It never ceases to amaze how people can look at less than 2 rounds of a fighter's career and think they can make an accurrate assessment of the fighter just from that. You could take two rounds out of most fights to make someone look bad. Try 15 rounds of Tubbs-Page where almost nothing happened. How about Vitaly Klitschko-Chris Byrd jabbing at each other's gloves for several rounds?

The Willard-Moran fight has always been considered a lackluster fight. However, even in those two rounds at least you see some action. There are many fights where you don't even get that.

Btw, people that dismiss Willard should try watching the two rounds of Wladimir Klitschko's fight with Corrie Sanders. He couldn't avoid a one armed fighter, showed again that he has no chin, and showed he had no idea what to do when he got hurt. Does this mean that Klitschko can't fight at all? Klitschko certainly looks a lot worse in those few minutes than Willard does against Moran.

Willard actually doesn't even look bad. He successfully blocks or slips pretty much all of Moran's haymakers. He shows a fast, stiff left jab, throws a few combinations (at about 1:18 he fires a one-two followed by an uppercut that looks as "coordinated" as any combinations Vitali ever threw), rips the uppercut inside. Yes his hands being so damn low looks "bad" but as stated put any modern super HW in a fight for 20 rounds or more and their hands will be just as low. And remember, their movements look strange b/c this is NOT filmed in real-time . . the guy just edited the speed so it wouldn't look so ridiculous, they really wern't moving around so choppily.
Moran of course wasn't a very skilled fighter but he was awkard, had a good chin, a big punch, and very good stamina. I think the film clearly shows that Moran didn't think he could outpoint Jess, so he spent the night trying to land his Sunday punch on Willard's chin. And that being said, I think Moran in the late rounds looks a helluva lot better than Sam Peter did in the late rounds vs Klitschko. Put Peter in a 20 round fight under burning lights and I seriously think Mr. 250 lbs on a 6'1 frame might die from exhaustion. Being that overweight fighting for that long would be a serious health risk.
Alp-Good point about some judging an entire career on a few rounds of film. Seems to happen quite a bit, and by individuals who don't put what they're looking at into the historical/conditional context!

Ambling Alp wrote:Btw, people that dismiss Willard should try watching the two rounds of Wladimir Klitschko's fight with Corrie Sanders.

I really thought Wlad looked quite bad in the first 3-4 rounds against Brock as well, although he did look a little better in the next few before stopping Brock. I'm really not sure why everyone always says that the Klitschkos are athletic, because Vitali always looked stiff and clumsy, and while Wlad tends to look better, he’s still quite stilted and robotic. The only real “super” HWs that I’ve seen that I would call athletic are Lewis and Bowe, and I even think Lewis tended to be clumsy in many of his fights. Bowe appeared to be better coordinated, he just didn’t want to train, and never learned how to avoid getting hit.