1919 Jess Willard vs. 1988 Larry Holmes

not so sure Willard was that bad as bad as say Tex Cobb or Scott Frank or Leroy Jones

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

****ey fought a prime Holmes, Willard fought a past it Johnson, very different. Holmes was many times better than Johnson and ****ey gave him a good fight, better than anyone bar Norton had at that point.

No, he didn't beat anyone else of note and his era was a semi pro era worse than today's amateurs.

Because I have eyes, ****ey was athletic and could throw punches properly, Willard could not

Shot Norton is arguably a better win than Shot Johnson. How can Johnson be world class when he wasn't a boxer anymore? He hadn't fought a real bout in how long?

And his tangible wins mean little in the modern era, 1000s of amateur boxers would beat Willard today, he wasn't very good. It's natural sports evolve.

Anyway you're derailing this thread with you're agenda as no one brought up ****ey and it's irrelevant to a past prime Holmes and Willard who were both past prime.

 

It wasn't directed at me, but I find some of these comments over the top, such as

"How can Johnson be world class when he wasn't a boxer anymore? He hadn't fought a real bout in how long?"

Well, the answer is he was the incumbent heavyweight champion, was on a run from 1905 to 1926 in which his only real loss was to Willard. He had last fought on June 27, 1914, a little over nine months earlier, when he defeated Frank Moran, certainly a top contender of the time, in a 20 round championship fight. He also had a fight with a nondescript opponent in December, but he is not unique there.

Frankly, he had a fought a lot more rounds in the two and a half years prior to meeting Willard than Gerry C had in the two and a half years prior to meeting Holmes. Gerry C had fought six rounds.

He would also go on to winning fights for another decade, include some over name trial horses of the day like Bob Roper, Tom Cowler, Jack Thompson, Homer Smith, and Pat Lester. Nothing overly impressive, but proving he still had quite a bit of skill and ability left until he hit the mid-century mark.

Saying he "wasn't a boxer" strikes me as way over the top.

"1000's of amateur boxers would beat Willard today, he was not very good."

Part of this is like saying thousands of guys could outrun the Olympic marathon champion over 40 or 60 meters, so they would win the marathon. Willard in 1915 was not fighting a three round fight.

As for not very good, I watched the Willard-Johnson fight twice last night (the supposedly most complete of what's remaining 35 minute film) and I must say I don't see at all that Willard is not a top athlete, or that Johnson wasn't. I also watched the Vitali-Byrd fight, and frankly, Willard and Johnson impressed me as being the better natural athletes. Willard could back out of danger very fast. He carried his hands low but got them up when Johnson charged and seemed able to do a pretty good job of parrying and blocking or rolling with punches. He was pretty much unmarked after 26 rounds. He obviously was good at tying a man up inside. Johnson impressed me as being faster on his feet and with his hands than Byrd. As for stamina, Willard picked up the pace in the 25th round (more than twice as far as any modern boxer goes) and note how quickly he bounced backward out of danger when Johnson threatened to charge him in that round. He seems not to have tired at all. Yes, the pace over that distance was moderate, but no way can I credit Vitali (who was sucking wind by the 6th round) or Wlad with having that kind of stamina.

"Gerry C was athletic and could throw punches properly. Willard could not."

What exactly was wrong with Willard's jab in the Johnson film? What exactly was wrong with the overhand right which KO'd Johnson? What exactly was wrong with his body work in the 25th round?

What I didn't see was a good left hook, or much of one at all. He seemed to have a long, hard jab, and he had a right cross. It didn't show in this film, but by reputation his best punch was a right uppercut. As for Gerry C being more athletic to me, well, I'll try to watch him soon again, but at this point I would say only in fantasies.

"Gerry C versus Holmes"

Holmes was the dominant champion of his era, while Willard was not, and fighting under his rules, Holmes should win and I pick him, relative strengths of eras aside. Gerry C and Willard is a much more interesting debate which is why it probably has intruded into this thread.

"Evolve"

Skills evolve, but there would be no necessary evolution of basic athletic gifts like reflexes over a few generations. I judge off the film that Willard and Johnson were just as athletic as Vitali and Byrd, and frankly it would probably be very difficult to change my mind. What I see I see. A skill argument I am more open to.

*I have a close friend who was a long time boxer and trainer, but I don't think he is much into old boxing films, but I plan on asking to watch the Willard-Johnson fight with me this week, and I'll get back on whether he agrees with my take or the negative ones expressed here.

 

Excellent post well ****ysed and balanced unlike the majority of armchair critics on this forum.

 

What is it with this forum some censorship on certain words!!! Moderators sort it out!! ****ysed is not a rude word!
A-n-a-l-ysed!!!lol

 

You can't say C-ooney any more!!! Political correctness gone mad!

 

goddam

 

I personally feel that Willard is the most unjustly maligned fighter on the Classic Forum.

People don't hate him personally, he is just collateral damage two particular campaigns.

He is an embarrassment to people who argue for the superiority of larger modern heavyweights, because he is a super heavyweight who was unquestionably world class, who got destroyed by a fighter who weighed less than 190lbs. This represents a big hole in their argument, so they have to take him down, and the further the better.

He is also a problem for people who dislike Jack Dempsey, because no other heavyweight has overcome this sort of size disparity, at this level. Not much to criticise in Dempsey's performance, so the only way forward is to attack Willard.

On thing I find distasteful about the attacks on Willard, is that they rely on soundbites, as opposed to logical arguments. He was a skilless oaf, he was a big stiff, he was a farm hand who somehow stumbled into the boxing ring. Those kind of attacks upon a fighter, tend to be the least sincere.

People need to put their personal agendas aside, and recognise that Willard was a lineal champion in his own right, who deserves a balanced assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.

 

Got to agree with you janitor there are an awful number of people on this forum who are incredibly biased when it comes to their favourite fighters and objectivity goes out the window.
For Willard to have managed to hang in there with Johnson for 25 rounds and to knock him out should not be diminished as an achievement. I see a parallel between Buster Douglas and Willard in that they are effectively seen as 'one hit wonders' who rose to prominence beating the best but were unable to sustain that level of performance. Both lost to ATG fighters and we should be careful not to denigrate what they achieved.