Log in or Sign up

Jess Willard vs corrie sanders

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mr Butt, Jun 11, 2013.

Page 3 of 4

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,800

Likes Received:

52,941

janitor said: ↑

With all due respect, you have to assume some equivalency between eras because you can ultimately never prove the superiority of one era over another.
On what basis do you draw your assumption that a fringe contender from the 90s beats a champion from the 10s?

Witout a single peice of evidence from the real world, you make this sweeping assumption, and treat it as if it is as incontrovertible as geometry.
Click to expand...

I can look at the tape. I would like to poll 50 guys who spent any time in the ring (more than I have) and see what they think of Willard. Also, the fact that Willard walked off the farm at 28 or so and became a World Champion with no background in the sport. When did that last happen in the heavyweight ranks?

janitor said: ↑

What does it say about Sanders erea that a semi retired golfer was able to destroy the dominant champion of that era?

Click to expand...

That is a totally overplayed myth. When Sanders got to a certain point in his career where he had paid his dues and was being avoided. (None other than Don King admitted this), he lost a bit of passion. However, when he did focus, he had camp and was serious. By the time he fought Waldo, he had been boxing almost 20 years. He didn't just walk of the proverbial farm... or golf course.

janitor said: ↑

Willard was not a great champion, and he did not rise to the top of a strong era, but at least he rose to the top of it, and at least he was not a one hit wonder.

Sanders was a fringe contender who only beat one good fighter.

That is where there is demonstrably no equivalency.
Click to expand...

Sanders was a long avoided factor in the division whose undoing was partially his own and largely part of the game. Again, Don King wondered aloud why a white fighter of Sanders talent had not been better exploited during what should have been his prime. His only thought was that Sanders was too high risk.

Willard was strong, yes. Was he really stronger than the scores of he men who filled the lower ranks of the heavyweight division in the 1990's? Does Willard beat any champion Johnson or later over a distance of 20 rounds or less? At best, he was a very poor man's Bonecrusher Smith... on his best day.

janitor said: ↑

Both Willard and Sanders will always be pawns in the size and evolution argument.

Those who argue the case for larger more modern heavyweights will always go to extreme lengths to pour pales of manure over Jess Willard, because he is a big heavyweight who lost to a smal heavyweight, and that makes him a big hole in their argument.

Click to expand...

Willard was an oaf with limited balance and very limited hand and foot speed. Sanders was wildly fast of hand and light on his feet. The guy was a prep track star and recruited rugger. He was an athlete, not merely a big farmhand.

janitor said: ↑

By the same token they will always try to make Sanders into some head to head monster, because he destroyed the dominant superheavyweigth of his era.

I have to tell you some hard truths here.

Sanders did not go from being a fringe contender type to a head to head monster overnight, and then back again overnight.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the same sort who wants to tell me that Bob Satterfield would KO half the heavyweight division today?
Click to expand...

Seamus, Jun 13, 2013

#31

janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,973

Likes Received:

27,957

Seamus said: ↑

I can look at the tape. I would like to poll 50 guys who spent any time in the ring (more than I have) and see what they think of Willard. Also, the fact that Willard walked off the farm at 28 or so and became a World Champion with no background in the sport. When did that last happen in the heavyweight ranks?

Click to expand...

In one thread a couple of years back I posted footage of Jess Willard in the Frank Moran fight next to footage of Vitally Klitschko in the Sam Peter fight, and challenged Willards critics to point out the stylistic differences and technical improvments in Vitaly Klitschko.

It was met with a deathly silence.

If you feel that the film footage is such a powerful weapon in your favour then why don't you use it?

That is a totally overplayed myth. When Sanders got to a certain point in his career where he had paid his dues and was being avoided. (None other than Don King admitted this), he lost a bit of passion. However, when he did focus, he had camp and was serious. By the time he fought Waldo, he had been boxing almost 20 years. He didn't just walk of the proverbial farm... or golf course.
Click to expand...

So in 20 years he only manged one decent win.

What was he doing with the rest of the time?

Sanders was a long avoided factor in the division whose undoing was partially his own and largely part of the game. Again, Don King wondered aloud why a white fighter of Sanders talent had not been better exploited during what should have been his prime. His only thought was that Sanders was too high risk.

Click to expand...

One top fighter prepared to give him a chance was Rahman, and we saw what happened there.

Willard was strong, yes. Was he really stronger than the scores of he men who filled the lower ranks of the heavyweight division in the 1990's? Does Willard beat any champion Johnson or later over a distance of 20 rounds or less? At best, he was a very poor man's Bonecrusher Smith... on his best day.

Click to expand...

These might be valid questions if you were actualy comparing him to somebody who could put forward paper acomplishments to rival these.

Dose Sanders beat any champion over any sort of ditance at all?

Willard was an oaf with limited balance and very limited hand and foot speed. Sanders was wildly fast of hand and light on his feet. The guy was a prep track star and recruited rugger. He was an athlete, not merely a big farmhand.
Click to expand...

It is vary nice for Sanders that he was a good all round athlete, but Willard was actualy a boxer of proven pedigree. He won the undisputed heavyweight championship you know!

For all his limitations, Willard is still a standout among heavyweights his size.

I don't think that anybody whith his physical equipment has ever had better stamina and durability.

There have been fighters his size with more power, and fighters his size with better chins, but you would be hard put to find one with both.

These factors alone give him the poitential to be a handfull for anybody, let alone Sanders.

Aren't you the same sort who wants to tell me that Bob Satterfield would KO half the heavyweight division today?
Click to expand...

Despite his spotty record, Satterfield fought nearly as many ranked contenders as Muhamad Ali, and beat a few of them, so n I would not compare him to Sanders.
Click to expand...

janitor, Jun 13, 2013

#32

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. Full Member

Joined:

Jun 29, 2007

Messages:

55,255

Likes Received:

10,363

John Galt said: ↑

Seamus, you nailed it, "You like to drop the "world class" qualification as though there is an equivalency in world class heavyweights between the 1910's and the 1990's.... which there is not... as his distinctly proven by the fact a hayseed was able to saunter off the farm in his late 20's and win the world title." That Willard was able to start boxing at 29, with no amateur background, win the title in a few years, tells all we need to know about that era in boxing. And, if that isn't enough, seeing Willard on video should settle the argument.
Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Mendoza, Jun 13, 2013

#33
Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. Full Member

Joined:

Jun 29, 2007

Messages:

55,255

Likes Received:

10,363

janitor said: ↑

In one thread a couple of years back I posted footage of Jess Willard in the Frank Moran fight next to footage of Vitally Klitschko in the Sam Peter fight, and challenged Willards critics to point out the stylistic differences and technical improvments in Vitaly Klitschko.

It was met with a deathly silence.

Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

Mendoza, Jun 13, 2013

#34

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,800

Likes Received:

52,941

janitor said: ↑

In one thread a couple of years back I posted footage of Jess Willard in the Frank Moran fight next to footage of Vitally Klitschko in the Sam Peter fight, and challenged Willards critics to point out the stylistic differences and technical improvments in Vitaly Klitschko.

It was met with a deathly silence.
Click to expand...

Let's begin with the ham and egger who he is facing. Moran looks awful, wide stanced, telegraphed swing-for-the-fences type who doesn't seem to now how to throw a straight punch and circles into Willard's right hand the whole time. He makes Mummy Mormeck look like a fistic genius.

Willard's footwork is plodding and following and off balance... he has no lateral movement, no spring, shows no ability to circle and change angles... and he doesn't need to because of the abilities of his opponent. Compare his footwork to even a relatively aged Vitali against Areola. The difference is comical.

Williard is slow as hell on the trigger. I know the difference in film technology but I am commenting on his reactions to Moran's glaring openings. He is glacial in his response; he just seems to have no instincts or reflexes to what a very simple operator is doing. In the end, he just eats shots and mauls Moran. I will say that Willard has a good set of whiskers.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Jun 13, 2013

#35
JLP 6 Fighter/Puncher Full Member

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

Messages:

1,866

Likes Received:

31

I would like to have seen Corrie Sanders against that version of Jack Dempsey.

Willard was 37 against Dempsey. 37. Dempsey was helped that he could stand over Willard when he was trying to get up.

As I investigate a little more into Willard, I am finding out that he was indeed a worthy fighter. Begining his fight career at 27 and KO'ing about everything he ran into including Johnson seems pretty impressive. Especially when there is only one title to win. After he won the title he basically sat on it, just like Dempsey. But in his prime he was fighting and winning in impressive style.

I am not sure who wins between Sanders and Willard but, seriously, Willard's resume does deserve some more attention.

JLP 6, Jun 13, 2013

#36
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,973

Likes Received:

27,957

Seamus said: ↑

Let's begin with the ham and egger who he is facing. Moran looks awful, wide stanced, telegraphed swing-for-the-fences type who doesn't seem to now how to throw a straight punch and circles into Willard's right hand the whole time. He makes Mummy Mormeck look like a fistic genius.

Click to expand...

The fact that you call Moran a ham'n egger rather suggests that you don't know the state of the division at the time.

Willard's footwork is plodding and following and off balance... he has no lateral movement, no spring, shows no ability to circle and change angles... and he doesn't need to because of the abilities of his opponent. Compare his footwork to even a relatively aged Vitali against Areola. The difference is comical.
Click to expand...

Willard clearly is circling and changing angles throughout the fight.

The rest of your criticisms are so vague, that it rather sounds like you are cluthching at straws.

Williard is slow as hell on the trigger. I know the difference in film technology but I am commenting on his reactions to Moran's glaring openings. He is glacial in his response; he just seems to have no instincts or reflexes to what a very simple operator is doing. In the end, he just eats shots and mauls Moran. I will say that Willard has a good set of whiskers.
Click to expand...

I could point to a number of cases where he shows instincts and reflexes, like when Moran tries to rush in and he switches to the uppercut.

You are trying to find technical weaknesses here. You are not coming up with very much, and what you are coming up withy is manifestly true.

Given that you are boldly proclaiming that there have been quantum leaps in technique between Willard and Klitschko, this is less than impresive.

Indeed you are calling this world champion a "a glorified circus strong man" and you are still coming up short whne pointing out his technical limitations.
Click to expand...

janitor, Jun 13, 2013

#37

janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,973

Likes Received:

27,957

Mendoza said: ↑

This content is protected

Click to expand...

I am not saying that Willard is the equal of VK, but technicaly and stylisticaly they are very similar.

VK isn't better because he represents a quantum leap in boxing technique, he is better because he has better reflexes, better fighting mentality, better ring generalship.
Click to expand...

janitor, Jun 13, 2013

#38
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,800

Likes Received:

52,941

janitor said: ↑

The fact that you call Moran a ham'n egger rather suggests that you don't know the state of the division at the time.

Click to expand...

The fact that Moran was notable speaks volumes for the division.

Willard clearly is circling and changing angles throughout the fight.

The rest of your criticisms are so vague, that it rather sounds like you are cluthching at straws.

Click to expand...

I just rewatched the youtube footage (which we can't post here). Willard is following like a puppy dog. He occasionally grapples and he tries, sometimes successfully, to avoid Moran's wildly telegraphed rights.

I could point to a number of cases where he shows instincts and reflexes, like when Moran tries to rush in and he switches to the uppercut.

You are trying to find technical weaknesses here. You are not coming up with very much, and what you are coming up withy is manifestly true.

Given that you are boldly proclaiming that there have been quantum leaps in technique between Willard and Klitschko, this is less than impresive.
Click to expand...

Sure, all three guys fight like big men. And I've seen dozens of Ali imitators with losing records. Is that your point? I see a giant gulf, a huge and vast chasm, between the athletic abilities and level of technique between Willard and even the late stage, lamentable Vitali.... let alone the Wlad of a few years ago. Footwork and reflexes (the two most important elements to "big man boxing") being the most glaring.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Jun 13, 2013

#39
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,973

Likes Received:

27,957

Seamus said: ↑

The fact that Moran was notable speaks volumes for the division.

Click to expand...

That migth be the case, but Sanders contesting the vacant Ring Belt isn't exactly the mark of a strong era.

I just rewatched the youtube footage (which we can't post here). Willard is following like a puppy dog. He occasionally grapples and he tries, sometimes successfully, to avoid Moran's wildly telegraphed rights.

Click to expand...

Spin it how you want, Willard uses his size to control Moran, exactly the same way as a contemporary superheavyweight would.

Sure, all three guys fight like big men. And I've seen dozens of Ali imitators with losing records. Is that your point? I see a giant gulf, a huge and vast chasm, between the athletic abilities and level of technique between Willard and even the late stage, lamentable Vitali.... let alone the Wlad of a few years ago. Footwork and reflexes (the two most important elements to "big man boxing") being the most glaring.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about this "giant gulf in technique", but seem to be having trouble putting it into words.

If you asked me to explain how Floyd Mayweater was technicaly superior to Sam Peter, I would not have any difficulty giving you a breakdown.
Click to expand...

janitor, Jun 13, 2013

#40
Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. Full Member

Joined:

Jun 29, 2007

Messages:

55,255

Likes Received:

10,363

janitor
The fact that you call Moran a ham'n egger rather suggests that you don't know the state of the division at the time.

Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Mendoza, Jun 13, 2013

#41

Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. Full Member

Joined:

Jun 29, 2007

Messages:

55,255

Likes Received:

10,363

Seamus says

Let's begin with the ham and egger who he is facing. Moran looks awful, wide stanced, telegraphed swing-for-the-fences type who doesn't seem to now how to throw a straight punch and circles into Willard's right hand the whole time. He makes Mummy Mormeck look like a fistic genius.

Willard's footwork is plodding and following and off balance... he has no lateral movement, no spring, shows no ability to circle and change angles... and he doesn't need to because of the abilities of his opponent. Compare his footwork to even a relatively aged Vitali against Areola. The difference is comical.

Williard is slow as hell on the trigger. I know the difference in film technology but I am commenting on his reactions to Moran's glaring openings. He is glacial in his response; he just seems to have no instincts or reflexes to what a very simple operator is doing. In the end, he just eats shots and mauls Moran. I will say that Willard has a good set of whiskers.

Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Mendoza, Jun 13, 2013

#42
janitor VIP Member

Joined:

Feb 15, 2006

Messages:

71,973

Likes Received:

27,957

Mendoza said: ↑

This content is protected

This content is protected

Click to expand...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

janitor, Jun 13, 2013

#43
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,800

Likes Received:

52,941

janitor said: ↑

Spin it how you want, Willard uses his size to control Moran, exactly the same way as a contemporary superheavyweight would.

Click to expand...

Yes, and Larry Donald used speed to control his opponents as did Ali. We agree that they use the same elements of style. However, doing against Moran, who is **** on film, and doing it against even an average modern heavy, like Arreola, are two different things.

janitor said: ↑

You keep talking about this "giant gulf in technique", but seem to be having trouble putting it into words.
Click to expand...

Did I say gulf in technique or in athletic abilities and level of technique? Because I watch even an old Vitali, on a destroyed knee and bad back, on his toes, showing perfect balance, moving his opponent exactly where he wants him. The level at which Vitali and Wlad operate is echelons above what Willard demonstrates. That is partly them being better athletes and part them having much more refined technique. Did they rewrite the book? No. They just had a much better vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Seamus, Jun 13, 2013

#44
Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Joined:

Aug 26, 2004

Messages:

23,760

Likes Received:

2,328

Sanders can get him early but if the fight goes on I think Willard can exhaust the golfer into a TKO

Bummy Davis, Jun 13, 2013

#45

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 3 of 4