BoxRec

Robinson wrote: yet Willard who turned pro at 29-30 ? Was relatively 'young' in the
ring as such.

--- Jess was ridiculously young in ring experience which was the modis operandi of Johnson. How else do you think he padded out his record?

Physically, Jeff had lived as hard or harder, being born on a ranch and growing up to be a bronco buster and trainer. Cowboys break backs, fracture skulls, break arms and legs, get parts rearranged by massively strong livestock and lose appendages and limbs.

You're grasping at straws on a subject you know very little it appears.

You never answered my question regarding how you feel
Willard would have done against those other fighters.

Thanks again.

Robinson wrote:You never answered my question regarding how you feel
Willard would have done against those other fighters.

Thanks again.

Is that guy Granberry?

I believe it perhaps is. I welcome his return with a cyber hug.

I would favor Conn to outpoint Willard over 15, but Johnson would get knocked out after leading on points. Darcy never proved he could ever hang at 175 let alone at HW. Willard isn't an elite all time great in my book, but he was a very good HW. Those who say he was a Toughman fighter apparently don't know how to discern handcranked film. View Vitali Klitschko in 1916 film and you'd be saying he sucked too.

I'm not sure how Hopkins, a great middleweight, suddenly became on the level of Conn and Johnson at 175. By beating an old Tarver and Pavlik? Give me a break. Hopkins wouldn't beat Harold Johnson just as he wouldn't beat Willard.
There are only a few middleweights who b/c of certain attributes (abnormal speed, power, durability or some comb of) could hang with elite HWs . .patient Hopkins, not even a knockout puncher at 160 nor a speedy volume puncher like a Greb, isn't one of them.

DF,
How does one "discern" handmade film? Do you use your imagination and make the fighter what you want or wish him to be? No thanks, I'll believe what I see over what you tell me.

My first post in these forums. :)

dempseyfire wrote:. Those who say he was a Toughman fighter apparently don't know how to discern handcranked film. View Vitali Klitschko in 1916 film and you'd be saying he sucked too.

I actually made an 'experiment' on how Vitali Klitschko would look like in a fastened, low quality film and then slowened down and brightened the Willard-Moran film which was posted earlier in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srrmj6eAFGc
Vitali Klitschko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpZdSNB93Mo
Jess Willard vs Frank Moran

From what I know, Willard made a prediction that he would KO Moran but he supposedly broke his right hand early on in the fight which is why he was only using his left.

Now I don't think that Willard was a great boxer but he was very tough to beat with the rules of his day. I can't imagine a 43 year old Hopkins going 45 rounds nor do I see him knocking Willard out.

Hey that is neat! That altered film is actually worse in quality than 1916 technology. Even still Klitschko looks like Joe Gans there. Willard would be in serious trouble against this guy. You can see the flaws the old guys make going right back to 1897, through the varying film quality. It was a vastly different game then

The Great A,
Thanks for taking the time to show what Willard and Moran would look like on contemporary video and what VK and Peter would look like on the old type.
Willard and Moran still look like novice amateurs or Toughman competitors and by comparison, Sam Peter looks like Sugar Ray Leonard. Peter was moving side to side, slipping punches, something that neither Willard nor Moran ever thought of doing.

Now I know that the old hand cranked film is not the reason the old guys look so bad. They were really as bad as they looked. Their techniques had just not evolved. Willard might have been the best of his day, but with the what he shows as a fighter, he couldn't spar with Bernard Hopkins. Again, Hopkins could fight Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted and then he could do the same to Moran and then he could start his real sparring for the day.

John Galt wrote:The Great A,
Thanks for taking the time to show what Willard and Moran would look like on contemporary video and what VK and Peter would look like on the old type.
Willard and Moran still look like novice amateurs or Toughman competitors and by comparison, Sam Peter looks like Sugar Ray Leonard. Peter was moving side to side, slipping punches, something that neither Willard nor Moran ever thought of doing.

Now I know that the old hand cranked film is not the reason the old guys look so bad. They were really as bad as they looked. Their techniques had just not evolved. Willard might have been the best of his day, but with the what he shows as a fighter, he couldn't spar with Bernard Hopkins. Again, Hopkins could fight Willard, make him miss, frustrate him, and take him out whenever he wanted and then he could do the same to Moran and then he could start his real sparring for the day.

You're an idiot if you actually believe that.

Tell me exactly what style nuances make Vitali a polished modern day champ and Willard some Toughman fighter. Please, spread your indepth knowledge around to the rest of the board.

Willard wasn't the best of his time or near it. Johnson, McVey, Jeannette, Langford, Smith, Wills, probably a maturing McCarty, and considering the McMahom contest all of Dillon, Levinsky, Jeff Clarke, and Carpentier would beat Jess over 15 rounds. Fulton and Coffey might have a shout, Pelkey for example held him pretty even. Hopkins, a sound technican, would have to have a chance of a points win but would need a decent workrate.
Over 45 rounds a la Havana things change drastically and now only a peak Johnson, Langford, and Jeannette get my vote with confidence. Before that Jeffries would surely do it, maybe Corbett, Sullivan and I wouldnt rule Hart out. Lighter guys without decent power would have little chance IMO, including Hopkins.

DF,

If some would learn a bit about boxing mechanics/techniques it would help them to "discern" what they are seeing on video, handcranked or not. Explaining the differences in the techniques and skills of an olympic caliber boxer who is now at the top of pro boxing and a man who started boxing at age 29 because he was big would be unnecessary if discussing boxing with a knowledgeable boxing person. If the differences are not apparent to you, going to a gym or reading a book about boxing techniques would help you to "discern" what you are seeing on video.

The video speaks for itself. One can believe what he sees or one can continue to read old boxing books and romanticize about the "good old days.

I'll continue to believe what I see over what some old time reporter wrote. From the video evidence, Hopkins could beat Willard and Moran on his way to a real fight.

*Wllard and Moran threw about 32 punches between them in the first 2:18 of that video, the 10th round they appeared to throw even less. VK and Peter probably threw more punches in the 1:30 of their video than Willard and Moran threw in their whole fight. At the pace Willard and Moran fought, Butterbean could fight all night. Boxing has come a long way since those days.

John Galt wrote: From the video evidence, Hopkins could beat Willard and Moran on his way to a real fight.

--- Real evidence in the gym trumps video musings of the untutored.

IronBoy makes Pops look like Frankenstein in molasses. Too bad the fight can't be sanctioned.

Bottom line is Jess has a signature highlight over a top ten heavy of legend that Pops would yank the rest of his teeth for.

You on the other hand, got nothing.

The Great A.

Thank You for that.

It makes you appreciate the clarity of modern footage.

Granberry,

Should Leon's win over Ali be taken so seriously...

Should Clay's win over Moore be so significant....

Should Marciano's over Louis be a great indicator...

Yet, Johnson being KO'd by Willard is his greatest win,
who, really takes that win as true indication of Willard's greatness ?


How about Bob Fitzsimmons at his peak vs Willard ?
or
Joe Choynski at his best against a peak Willard?

I understand (& agree) with your point about Johnson being past-it, Robbo, but consider this --- who would you back in a straight-up fight?

2008 Hopkins vs. 1915 Johnson? If your answer is Johnson, remember, Willard bested him. If it's Hopkins, then by how great a measure?

So current Hopkins vs 1915 Johnson.

I would say Hopkins takes it over 12 rounds.

A lack luster clinch a thon where both men try to
counter and really do not let go. Hopkins spurts
and boxes well, but Johnson clinches strong and
holds well.

MD 12 Hopkins :)

And...you of all people know that an average fighter
can be bested by another fighter, but give another
superior fighter troubles.


Im just waiting for Granberry to answer my questions on
the matches I posed.

How about Mickey Walker vs Jess Willard ? or James J Corbett ?

The argument that under the right conditions does grow tired though...

under the right conditions Tex Cobb may have stopped Larry Holmes
around round 100.

Or...

Joe Grimm may have beaten Jack Johnson had it gone for 50 rounds...

or

George Foreman would have stopped Jimmy Young had it gone for
20 rounds...


Yes Willard did fight in some long fights. 20 rounds to Smith and 26
to Johnson, but many others were not epic marathons.

I set the scenario for 12 rounds...

For example lets say Georges Carpentier fought Jack Dempsey under boxe Francais
rules, one could argue well that Carpentier would have won that one..

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

John Galt wrote: From the video evidence, Hopkins could beat Willard and Moran on his way to a real fight.

--- Real evidence in the gym trumps video musings of the untutored.

IronBoy makes Pops look like Frankenstein in molasses. Too bad the fight can't be sanctioned.

Bottom line is Jess has a signature highlight over a top ten heavy of legend that Pops would yank the rest of his teeth for.

You on the other hand, got nothing.

Mr Broughton

May I ask what your back ground is ?

John Galt wrote:DF,

If some would learn a bit about boxing mechanics/techniques it would help them to "discern" what they are seeing on video, handcranked or not. Explaining the differences in the techniques and skills of an olympic caliber boxer who is now at the top of pro boxing and a man who started boxing at age 29 because he was big would be unnecessary if discussing boxing with a knowledgeable boxing person. If the differences are not apparent to you, going to a gym or reading a book about boxing techniques would help you to "discern" what you are seeing on video.

The video speaks for itself. One can believe what he sees or one can continue to read old boxing books and romanticize about the "good old days.

I'll continue to believe what I see over what some old time reporter wrote. From the video evidence, Hopkins could beat Willard and Moran on his way to a real fight.

*Wllard and Moran threw about 32 punches between them in the first 2:18 of that video, the 10th round they appeared to throw even less. VK and Peter probably threw more punches in the 1:30 of their video than Willard and Moran threw in their whole fight. At the pace Willard and Moran fought, Butterbean could fight all night. Boxing has come a long way since those days.

I'm sure I've spent far more hours in an actual boxing gym and sparring than you've spent looking at old footage and concluding that past world champions sucked.

Since it's so clear, again, please explain in WORDS what Vitali is doing different from Willard which shows him to be world class and Willard a Toughman fighter. It should be very easy.

Suddenly Hopkins can now not only beat Willard but a 1915 Johnson??
Maybe Kelly Pavlik now knocks out Jack Dempsey while we're at it . . . .

I never said that...

I think Dempsey tears away viciously at Pavlik. I have not picked
on your man Dempsey, in this thread, :P

I think Dempsey stops a 1915 Johnson quickly.

I think a 1908 Johnson wins a dec over a 2008 Hopkins.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Robinson wrote: yet Willard who turned pro at 29-30 ? Was relatively 'young' in the
ring as such.

--- Jess was ridiculously young in ring experience which was the modis operandi of Johnson. How else do you think he padded out his record?

Physically, Jeff had lived as hard or harder, being born on a ranch and growing up to be a bronco buster and trainer. Cowboys break backs, fracture skulls, break arms and legs, get parts rearranged by massively strong livestock and lose appendages and limbs.

You're grasping at straws on a subject you know very little it appears.

Although I'm sure his father had livestock on his land, Jeffries was raised on a 100-acre fruit farm, not a cattle ranch.

raylawpc wrote: Although I'm sure his father had livestock on his land, Jeffries was raised on a 100-acre fruit farm, not a cattle ranch.

--- Have you ever been through Kansas? Bout as likely to run into a fruit orchard as you are a goober in the Bronx. They exist as the rare exceptions.

Here's two links to Jesse's history and I'm sure more exist, but these easily accessible via wiki:

http://static.boxrec.com/book-open.png

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jeswbio.htm

Jess joined up with Wild Bill Hickok's western show, BTW, Hickok was a big guy who was handy with his fists from all accounts. Don't think Wild Bill had him pulling a plow behind mules.

At any rate, farming and ranching equally dangerous occupations full of back breaking work, so Jess had the usual wears and tears of a 29 yr old working man when he turned to boxing. My point in that regard stands.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Although I'm sure his father had livestock on his land, Jeffries was raised on a 100-acre fruit farm, not a cattle ranch.

--- Have you ever been through Kansas? Bout as likely to run into a fruit orchard as you are a goober in the Bronx. They exist as the rare exceptions.

Here's two links to Jesse's history and I'm sure more exist, but these easily accessible via wiki:

http://static.boxrec.com/book-open.png

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jeswbio.htm

Jess joined up with Wild Bill Hickok's western show, BTW, Hickok was a big guy who was handy with his fists from all accounts. Don't think Wild Bill had him pulling a plow behind mules.

At any rate, farming and ranching equally dangerous occupations full of back breaking work, so Jess had the usual wears and tears of a 29 yr old working man when he turned to boxing. My point in that regard stands.

Jim Jeffries was raised the age of 8 in California, not Kansas. He was born in Ohio. You previously wrote, "Physically, Jeff had lived as hard or harder, being born on a ranch and growing up to be a bronco buster and trainer. Cowboys break backs, fracture skulls, break arms and legs, get parts rearranged by massively strong livestock and lose appendages and limbs." Did you really mean to type Jess?

raylawpc wrote: Jim Jeffries was raised the age of 8 in California, not Kansas. He was born in Ohio. You previously wrote, "Physically, Jeff had lived as hard or harder, being born on a ranch and growing up to be a bronco buster and trainer. Cowboys break backs, fracture skulls, break arms and legs, get parts rearranged by massively strong livestock and lose appendages and limbs." Did you really mean to type Jess?

--- Obviously a typo as the whole thread about Willard and my post you respond to starts off as Jess before drifting to Jeff. Jeffries also comes from working stock as does Johnson and most every fighter. Fitz a blacksmith, Sharkey a sailor, ect.

Again, point being that JeSS had a goodly amount of wear and tear on him as a cowboy before starting boxing. Johnson left the hard docks of Galveston as a teen, finding fighting much easier and safer than the docks, but of course talent goes a long way towards any transition. This was the standard impetus of young men entering boxing and baseball back then, to get away from the farm or the ranch and earn better money.

Jess appears slower to make the move because of success as a horse trainer, a very valuable skill at the turn of the century plains.

Okay. I thought you were comparing Jeffries and Willard for some reason since somebody had mentioned Jeffries earlier in the thread.

BTW, I think you meant to refer to Buffalo Bill and not Wild Bill Hickok. Wild Bill never had a Wild West Show and died in 1876 - a few years before Willard was born. In fact, Buffalo Bill died before Willard joined the show in 1917. Don Russell, The Lives and Legends of Buffalo Bill (University of Oklahoma Press 1979), p. 473. Johnny Baker ran the show, which headlined Willard, after Cody's death.

And you will find several apple orchards in the Topeka area.