Why does size matter?

What do you think Vitali would do in Toledo? He was a hands low, pondering fighter as much as Willard was. Honestly the Vitali vs Briggs doesn't look like he's more advanced than Willard vs Dempsey.

 

Should I take your word or the word of someone who actually saw him fight in the flesh...

"Willard is like a wooden Indian that can not box and is so slow that he is in his own way." - Dan Morgan, Freeman, 11/19/14

"Willard both slow and clumsy" Oregonian, 12/4/1913

Willard's effort against Morris was called "a wonderful study in still life, such as a New York fight crowd has seldom been permitted to look upon."

 

Isnt that the same thing Bert Sugar said about the K bros?

 

I have never seen anything that contradicts this.

 

[url]https://streamable.com/ukbj[/url]

This Willard would be one of the title holder HW's today, maybe even lineal champ.

 

again, you are largely basing it on facing 2 ATGs. Tyson would get beat by those two guys. You are building your argument on sand.

 

"like a wooden indian" I'll be honest, the opinion of a guy who used phrases like that is worth kookall, underlined by the fact that is was part Native American who ripped willards head off. Dan morgan is fulloshyte.

to be fair, though, he was slow die to his size, bigger men are always slower than an equivalent with less body mass to haul around.

 

And?

Tyson wouldn't get beat by those guys like Foster got beat.

Would Ali just walk through Tyson like he did against Foster?

Would Ali take 1-2s from Tyson and do a playful wobble like he did against Foster?

Foster's punches had 0 effect on Ali besides cutting his skin.
Ali just let himself get tagged not bothered with any defence at all.
He was never that willing to get punched by any other HW fighter he fought, he gave Wepner more respect of all people.

 

This is one of the most interesting cases of cognitive dissonance i've seen.

Mostly i see it in politics, which we all know is a load of bull**** anyway, so it's interesting to see a guy construct and defend an argument he obviously can't back up (because he admits weight matters, just says it doesn't at hw, which is ridiculous on its own).

The strangest part about it is that if size doesn't matter at hw, dempsey and a bunch of small hw's lose one of the main things that makes them special. It also makes floyd patterson complete ****. Why do you hate patterson and dempsey so much that you seek to destroy their legacy by pretending that beating bigger men is irrelevant?

listons win over patterson becomes a huge win, as does schmelling over walker and everyone over foster were just amazing wins.

if size doesn't help to win fights then johnson and wlad are the hw goats by an absolute mile.

 

you do understand that a 'wooden indian' is an indian made of wood? 'wooden indian' isn't some racist phrase, it's a description of a statue of an indian/native american made of wood. at that time in america statues of native americans made of wood were quite popular.

 

oh cheers. sorry my mistake!

horrible. lets move on!

 

he'd get beat by yhem though becasue you chose an impossibly high ceiling for foster as a benchmark. Its like saying well, Superman would stomp Spiderman. And superman beats Hulk and Green Lantern too but less of a stomp, so there.

 

Would Ali take 1-2s from Tyson and do a playful wobble like he did against Foster?

The "impossibly high ceiling" I made was being able to back Ali away with punches.
Foster could not do that, they had no effect.

He simply couldn't do **** at heavyweight.

None of 5 good heavyweights he faced cared.

 

The were also called Cigar Store Indians. They were used as advertisements for such.