BoxRec

Jess Willard almost always comes towards the bottom of the lists of HW greats but is this really a fair reflection of his ability and achievement?

He has solid wins over contenders of the day. In his prime years he lost to Gunboat Smith and Dempsey – no shame in that.

Why does he get short-changed?

1) He beat a great but faded champion for his title. Johnson in his day would have mopped the floor with Willard.

Whilst the sentiment is true most great champions are bested by Father Time. I don’t think Willard having to out-last Johnson should really be held against him. He won the title against one of the greats of the game. Larry Holmes turned back half a dozen or more challengers whilst sporting a spare tyre.

2) He fights in that old straight-up style with his hands low. Boxing has moved on…

It might seem like this is true until you check out Vitali Klitschko. Here is a formidable champion who is very similar to Willard in style and it works to the extent that he is dominating his opposition. Willard also has the same traits as Vitali. A good chin. Good pacing of a fight. Uses his dimensions to their best effect. Has a powerful right hand. Put Jess on whatever PEDs the current crop are taking and you have a fighter who is not unlike Vitali.

3) He got smashed up by Dempsey, a big under-dog, in a brutal one-sided beating.

Dempsey was doing this to all the big men he fought. Liston’s reputation suffered similarly after he was dominated by Ali. It took decades before Liston was once again written about favourably. Similarly, Foreman before the comeback was judged very harshly. Losing to an underdog might hurt your reputation in the short term but it usually gets corrected over time.

I don’t think for a moment that Willard should be held up as one of the great champions but my feeling is that he was much better than he gets credit for. A right hand and a stout chin will take you far in the HW division.

OK...you've convinced me. He could have beaten Carnera.

Dempsey absolutely destroyed him though, and Willard hardly had a long and accomplishment-filled career. Liston at least was competitive against Ali in the first fight, and he had been terrorizing the division since he'd wasted Patterson. Foreman annihilated Frazier twice, smashed up Norton, out-slugged Lyle, and then came back as an old fatty to kick some more ass on his way to his second Lineal reign.

Willard gets a bit short-changed in a way, but he's easily one of the weaker amongst Boxing's HW championship club. I'm actually not even sure I'd favor him over Carnera, simply by virtue of the fact that Jack Dempsey is overrated as well. I've never seen a guy with so few actual title defenses get so much credit, especially considering how he struggled with Billy Miske and Willie Meehan not long before he beat Willard. The guy makes Rocky Marciano look like a dragon slayer.

Foreman and Liston were much better fighters though.

And wins over Pelkey, Moran, Kearns, Morris, Johnson and a draw with McCarty is a solid enough list of achievments in the ring.

Holmes was wasted by Tyson so the defeat to Jack need not be so damning.

It sounds like you just don't like the era to me. Miske was a top fighter. And other than Jeffries almost all the champs pre-Marciano had better names on their record before they won the title than after they won the title. You could just as easily say Ali/Foreman/Holmes beat mostly nobodies before they won their titles.

A question for the guys who know the era...

Pelkey, Morris, McCarty...would they have been alphabet holders in the 1980s?

Just trying to get a sense of the era. My feeling is they probably would have been.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Dempsey absolutely destroyed him though, and Willard hardly had a long and accomplishment-filled career. Liston at least was competitive against Ali in the first fight, and he had been terrorizing the division since he'd wasted Patterson. Foreman annihilated Frazier twice, smashed up Norton, out-slugged Lyle, and then came back as an old fatty to kick some more ass on his way to his second Lineal reign...

Willard gets a bit short-changed in a way, but he's easily one of the weaker amongst Boxing's HW championship club. I'm actually not even sure I'd favor him over Carnera, simply by virtue of the fact that Jack Dempsey is overrated as well. I've never seen a guy with so few actual title defenses get so much credit, especially considering how he struggled with Billy Miske and Willie Meehan not long before he beat Willard. The guy makes Rocky Marciano look like a dragon slayer.

Awesome phrasing D

Ezzard wrote:Foreman and Liston were much better fighters though.

And wins over Pelkey, Moran, Kearns, Morris, Johnson and a draw with McCarty is a solid enough list of achievments in the ring.

Holmes was wasted by Tyson so the defeat to Jack need not be so damning.

It sounds like you just don't like the era to me. Miske was a top fighter. And other than Jeffries almost all the champs pre-Marciano had better names on their record before they won the title than after they won the title. You could just as easily say Ali/Foreman/Holmes beat mostly nobodies before they won their titles.

I do like the era. I've recently been studying it for my own interest because I previously had little knowledge about it, but I simply feel that because of how long ago it was as well as how Dempsey somewhat revolutionized the pacing of some fights with how viciously he'd start that it's taken on a more legendary and worshipped tone in history than it technically deserves.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Foreman and Liston were much better fighters though.

And wins over Pelkey, Moran, Kearns, Morris, Johnson and a draw with McCarty is a solid enough list of achievments in the ring.

Holmes was wasted by Tyson so the defeat to Jack need not be so damning.

It sounds like you just don't like the era to me. Miske was a top fighter. And other than Jeffries almost all the champs pre-Marciano had better names on their record before they won the title than after they won the title. You could just as easily say Ali/Foreman/Holmes beat mostly nobodies before they won their titles.

I do like the era. I've recently been studying it for my own interest because I previously had little knowledge about it, but I simply feel that because of how long ago it was as well as how Dempsey somewhat revolutionized the pacing of some fights with how viciously he'd start that it's taken on a more legendary and worshipped tone in history than it technically deserves.

Not sure what you mean by "...how long ago it was..."?????

And the Miske comment?

I'm still trying to fathom the logic behind how you don't think Willard could beat Carnera, based on the fact you feel Dempsey is overrated.

Guess my point is that Willard gets dismissed whilst Weaver, Coetzee, Page, Bruno, Smith, Williams and Ruddock are considered to be decent contenders.

Ezzard wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Foreman and Liston were much better fighters though.

And wins over Pelkey, Moran, Kearns, Morris, Johnson and a draw with McCarty is a solid enough list of achievments in the ring.

Holmes was wasted by Tyson so the defeat to Jack need not be so damning.

It sounds like you just don't like the era to me. Miske was a top fighter. And other than Jeffries almost all the champs pre-Marciano had better names on their record before they won the title than after they won the title. You could just as easily say Ali/Foreman/Holmes beat mostly nobodies before they won their titles.

I do like the era. I've recently been studying it for my own interest because I previously had little knowledge about it, but I simply feel that because of how long ago it was as well as how Dempsey somewhat revolutionized the pacing of some fights with how viciously he'd start that it's taken on a more legendary and worshipped tone in history than it technically deserves.

Not sure what you mean by "...how long ago it was..."?????

And the Miske comment?

I'm still trying to fathom the logic behind how you don't think Willard could beat Carnera, based on the fact you feel Dempsey is overrated.

Guess my point is that Willard gets dismissed whilst Weaver, Coetzee, Page, Bruno, Smith, Williams and Ruddock are considered to be decent contenders.

I mean because it was so long ago, and the fact that there isn't an abundance of footage from the time it becomes more imaginitive on behalf of many trying to play out how some of these fights actually happened, leading to it being overrated by virtue of assumption.

I never said Willard couldn't beat Carnera, I said I wouldn't be totally sure of it, because two men that large would have made for a hell of an interesting fight, possibly like Lewis-Vitali in that normally both men were often untouchable by smaller opponents but when matched against each other made for an absolute war. In that sense, Willard probably would've outlasted Carnera, but Primo's strength couldn't necessarily be counted out either. When I mentioned Dempsey it was partly coming from the fact that I don't necessarily think he was that much more deadly than the Max Baer who destroyed Carnera in terms of those two fights head-to-head.

As far as Willard being underrated vs. those other guys I'd actually agree with you, I think he particularly gets underrated though because of the fact that he took up Boxing at an extremely late age and although his style showed it, he was successful despite the inexperience, which likely drew the ire of both "purists" who thought fighters should be bred from birth and average joes who thought it was unfair that somebody just happened to be a natural and they didn't, thus leading to a number of negative historical connotations with regard to him.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote: I do like the era. I've recently been studying it for my own interest because I previously had little knowledge about it, but I simply feel that because of how long ago it was as well as how Dempsey somewhat revolutionized the pacing of some fights with how viciously he'd start that it's taken on a more legendary and worshipped tone in history than it technically deserves.

Not sure what you mean by "...how long ago it was..."?????

And the Miske comment?

I'm still trying to fathom the logic behind how you don't think Willard could beat Carnera, based on the fact you feel Dempsey is overrated.

Guess my point is that Willard gets dismissed whilst Weaver, Coetzee, Page, Bruno, Smith, Williams and Ruddock are considered to be decent contenders.

I mean because it was so long ago, and the fact that there isn't an abundance of footage from the time it becomes more imaginitive on behalf of many trying to play out how some of these fights actually happened, leading to it being overrated by virtue of assumption.

I never said Willard couldn't beat Carnera, I said I wouldn't be totally sure of it, because two men that large would have made for a hell of an interesting fight, possibly like Lewis-Vitali in that normally both men were often untouchable by smaller opponents but when matched against each other made for an absolute war. In that sense, Willard probably would've outlasted Carnera, but Primo's strength couldn't necessarily be counted out either. When I mentioned Dempsey it was partly coming from the fact that I don't necessarily think he was that much more deadly than the Max Baer who destroyed Carnera in terms of those two fights head-to-head.

As far as Willard being underrated vs. those other guys I'd actually agree with you, I think he particularly gets underrated though because of the fact that he took up Boxing at an extremely late age and although his style showed it, he was successful despite the inexperience, which likely drew the ire of both "purists" who thought fighters should be bred from birth and average joes who thought it was unfair that somebody just happened to be a natural and they didn't, thus leading to a number of negative historical connotations with regard to him.

The fact we don’t have footage of these guys does not mean we cannot know about them, or how good they were. There is no footage of Thomas Jefferson giving a speech, yet we know he was a lousy public speaker. We know this because his contemporaries were unanimous that he was a marvelous wordsmith, but sucked at delivery. Read the accounts of the times: How did Willard’s contemporaries view him? That should give you a pretty good idea.

I feel that ''old style'' is getting to much flak from many people in discussions like this one.
After reading alot of old boxing manuals and experimenting in the gym and in sparring ive found alot of the moves they did were quite usefull and effective. (Offcourse im no master boxer far,far from a master boxer tbh :( ) So i wouldnt know how it looks like at the highest lvl,but i got the feeling a old school fighter wouldnt be ''lost'' today because of his style.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Dempsey absolutely destroyed him though, and Willard hardly had a long and accomplishment-filled career. Liston at least was competitive against Ali in the first fight, and he had been terrorizing the division since he'd wasted Patterson. Foreman annihilated Frazier twice, smashed up Norton, out-slugged Lyle, and then came back as an old fatty to kick some more ass on his way to his second Lineal reign.

Willard gets a bit short-changed in a way, but he's easily one of the weaker amongst Boxing's HW championship club. I'm actually not even sure I'd favor him over Carnera, simply by virtue of the fact that Jack Dempsey is overrated as well. I've never seen a guy with so few actual title defenses get so much credit, especially considering how he struggled with Billy Miske and Willie Meehan not long before he beat Willard. The guy makes Rocky Marciano look like a dragon slayer.

? Billy Miske was an ATG who deserves to be in the HOF. In the current scene , you asked who he beat who was HOF calibre. Miske is one, and Sharkey, Levinsky and Carpentier are in the HOF. Also beat very good HWs such as Brennan and Fulton. Dempsey essentially cleaned out the HW division besides Wills in the late teens.

Willard also beat contenders Carl Morris, Arthur Pelky and the highly touted Luther McCarty in addition to the Johnson victory.

It's hard to say if Willard is underrated overall. People seem to have such vast differences of opinions about him. I suppose some people overrate him and some underrate him.

He had good stamina, a lot of heart, a decent punch and a good chin. He also was slow, easy to hit and had little boxing ability.

In some ways he was lucky against Johnson. Johnson was 37 and way past his prime. Even so, had the fight been scheduled for 10,12,15, or even 20 rounds Willard would have lost. However, he still had to take Johnson's punches, still had to have the stamina to go 26 rounds, and still had to knockout Johnson.

Outside of the Johnson fight, his biggest wins were newspaper wins (not official wins) against Moran, Morris and McCarty.
Hard to say how much credit Willard should get for the McCarty fight. both were pretty inexpierenced at the time of their fight. (Both had been pros for less than 2 years and only had a bout a dozen fights each.)

The tragic win over McCarty aside, Pelkey was not a very good fighter and a win over him doesn''t mean much.

To answer a question of Ezzard's, I doubt that Moran or Morris would have been a title holder in the 1980s. McCarty is more difficult to say.

He was one of the worst heavyweight champions. Really, Hart, Carnera, Braddock and Leon Spinks are about the only champions (not including WBS titleholders) that might be worse. However obviously most fighters don't ever become the champion.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's hard to say if Willard is underrated overall. People seem to have such vast differences of opinions about him. I suppose some people overrate him and some underrate him.

He had good stamina, a lot of heart, a decent punch and a good chin. He also was slow, easy to hit and had little boxing ability.

In some ways he was lucky against Johnson. Johnson was 37 and way past his prime. Even so, had the fight been scheduled for 10,12,15, or even 20 rounds Willard would have lost. However, he still had to take Johnson's punches, still had to have the stamina to go 26 rounds, and still had to knockout Johnson.

Outside of the Johnson fight, his biggest wins were newspaper wins (not official wins) against Moran, Morris and McCarty.
Hard to say how much credit Willard should get for the McCarty fight. both were pretty inexpierenced at the time of their fight. (Both had been pros for less than 2 years and only had a bout a dozen fights each.)

The tragic win over McCarty aside, Pelkey was not a very good fighter and a win over him doesn''t mean much.

To answer a question of Ezzard's, I doubt that Moran or Morris would have been a title holder in the 1980s. McCarty is more difficult to say.

He was one of the worst heavyweight champions. Really, Hart, Carnera, Braddock and Leon Spinks are about the only champions (not including WBS titleholders) that might be worse. However obviously most fighters don't ever become the champion.

Briggs & Rahman can stake their claim, too.

I think Willard is under-rated. Stanley Weston wrote a book in early 70s opining that Willard got a bum wrap because a lot of people believed Jack Johnson when he said he threw the title and the films of that fight didn't become generally available until the early 60s. After finally watching the Johnson-Willard fight, Weston became convinced that Willard was severely under-rated. Yes, he got creamed by Dempsey but Dempsey was a monster at that time. Willard was very strong, extremely durable, with a hard straight left hand, a right uppercut that killed Bull Young, and an overhand right that flattened Jack Johnson. (Though Johnson was clearly past his prime, he possibly could still have beaten anyone else on earth that day except Willard.) I think the Bull Young fight did affect him in the sense that he didn't always go after people 100% like he could have done, and possibly got out-worked in some affairs that he could easily have won had he wanted to, but he was a different guy when motivated (as in the Havana fight). Also, he had to have been more athletic than people give him credit for being-- his "side career" as a rodeo performer makes him, at least in the context of his day, a genuine 2-sport success.

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.

Pelkey was a fine fighter prior to the McCarty death, which severely affected him and forever changed him, as one can see by the preciptious drop in his record post that bout. Moran and Morris were tough, durable, heavy hitters who some skills to boot (Moran more than Morris in that regard).

Morris,skill? What fights are you talking about?
Pelkey was average to good pre McCarty, it certainly finished him but he was at best just ok. BTW it was a close fight with Jess.

Okay, think about it like this...

A win over Willard seems to count for little in discussions...

Yet a win over Berbick, Bruno, Tubbs, Coetzee, Weaver, etc... tends to be considered as a solid victory.

I think Willard would have held a title in recent times. And for the doubters... I look at Vitali and see a comparable style and list of abilities - so he could be successful.

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.

DempseyFire has in the past made the most interesting point that Willard in Hi-Def, or Klitschko on a hand-cranked camera, would look about even to the eyes of many ignorant observers.

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.

Nothing to do with the topic, but I love this photo of Dempsey before he fought Willard. Could he be any more relaxed?

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.

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.