Was Willard the worst ?

Was Jess Willard the worst of the real heavyweight champions ?

Ignore the modern alphabet champs, and just compare him to the linear champs from Sullivan through to Lewis.

How bad was Willard ?

Personally, I dont rate him highly at all, but I think he legitimately beat Jack Johnson by KO in 26th round, and I do think he had a great chin. 26 rounds in the sun deserves some credit, esp. when he was taking a lot of punishment there.

Still, I dont know who was positively WORSE than Willard.

Hasim Rahman ? Leon Spinks ?
Primo Carnera ? Were they worse than Willard ?

[Russell]

Thing is, Willard was never some hell bent lover of the sport. He was probably less "into" boxing than Max Baer.

He literally strategically got behind the referee at times because he just didn't want to push a fight.

And even then he had the power to ****ing KILL people with single uppercuts.

[Dempsey1238]

Willard is underated, He is far from the worse Lineal champ. I think I put him over guys like Spinks, Rahman, Briggs and others. I also belive Willard at his peak and under HIS rule set, could be hell for nearly any one that cant blow him out in 3 rounds(Dempsey) I give the Punchers of the champions better shots than I do the boxers in this rule set.

[Russell]

Willard underestimated Dempsey to a stupid degree regardless, and that might of been the most driven and bloodthirsty Dempsey ever, so eh.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by Russell

Willard underestimated Dempsey to a stupid degree regardless, and that might of been the most driven and bloodthirsty Dempsey ever, so eh.

Well no one didnt relly know Dempsey would be the next big thing though. And Willard was champion for a number of years(Yes a inactive champion of couse) So thats bound to make understimated some one I suppose.

Originally Posted by Dempsey1238

Willard is underated, He is far from the worse Lineal champ. I think I put him over guys like Spinks, Rahman, Briggs and others. I also belive Willard at his peak and under HIS rule set, could be hell for nearly any one that cant blow him out in 3 rounds(Dempsey) I give the Punchers of the champions better shots than I do the boxers in this rule set.

I forgot about Briggs.
I agree that Willard poses something of a problem in a long fight against guys who cant knock him out.
What is Willard's rule set ? Longer fights ?

I would disagree that Willard is "far from the worst linear champ", I'd say he falls within the bottom handful. Then again, that doesn't say much for Jack Johnson.

I do believe most of the linear champs and undisputed champs were good and very good fighters, so I dont necessarily "underrate" Willard. His toughness is legendary, and rightly so.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

I forgot about Briggs.
I agree that Willard poses something of a problem in a long fight against guys who cant knock him out.
What is Willard's rule set ? Longer fights ?

I would disagree that Willard is "far from the worst linear champ", I'd say he falls within the bottom handful. Then again, that doesn't say much for Jack Johnson.

I do believe most of the linear champs and undisputed champs were good and very good fighters, so I dont necessarily "underrate" Willard. His toughness is legendary, and rightly so.

More than just longer fights, the smaller gloves, lax Refs, Inside clich work. The standers of the 1910's or so. People have called me crazy before, but before the Crash, I said I felt Willard might be able to beat Ali in a 45 round fight under the 1910's rule set.

[Russell]

Johnson had been in France indulging in their food and wine for years at the time Willard beat him.

Not too terribly suprising.

[Sizzle]

In terms of skill, and fighters instinct, he's quite possibly one of the worst, if not the worst.

But he's very large, incredibly durable, and has tremendous power if he can actually set his right up to land.

I'd probably favour him to be a titlist in the modern era, but probably lose a very lopsided decision to Klitschko.

I'd favour just about every lineal champion to beat him, but he has the old "punchers chance" against the likes of Patterson, Schmeling, and perhaps Rahman.

[SteveO]

Worse than Buster Douglas?

(assuming we're looking strictly at championship reign).

[RafaelGonzal]

Primo Carnera was worse

[Dempsey1238]

Carnera is underated also. He look impressive in fights outside of Louis and Baer, I put Carnea on the level of VK or so. Perhaps Wlad.

[Jack Dempsey]

I'd say Carnera was the worst

Originally Posted by Sizzle

I'd favour just about every lineal champion to beat him, but he has the old "punchers chance" against the likes of Patterson, Schmeling, and perhaps Rahman.

I agree. In fact, he has a "puncher's chance" against almost anyone.
Lennox Lewis and Ezzard Charles lost their titles due to one punch, so they should be mentioned before Schmeling, IMO.
But "puncher's chance" doesn't amount to much. Most heavyweights have it.

Originally Posted by Jack Dempsey

I'd say Carnera was the worst

Carnera looks a bit better on film than Willard - until he gets hit ! Carnera couldn't take it too well.
Also, though I dont believe every word of it, the rumours that Carnera's fights were fixed probably have some basis in truth.