1919 Jess Willard vs. 1988 Larry Holmes

How old and inactive was Willard when he fought Dempsey? No holes in the argument here. A great puncher can win anytime. Willard has zero defense, Holmes and most champs post 1970 have a field day with him.

I don't think Willard was the worst champion. He had size, power, and durability. Enough to beat the Braddock's, Hart's, and L. Spinks types.

 

I certainly can't agree that Willard had zero defence.

He held his hands low to draw his opponents fire, but he was good at catching punches off his gloves. That aside his reach was his defence, and if you tried to get inside it, he was waiting with a bomb of some description.

We agree on him not being the worst lineal champion, and not among the better ones either.

Lets at least give him a fair assessment though!

 

Is there a danger that you are judging these fighters skillset by the modern rule book?

I read a boxing manual from around 1900, and compared it to a modern one.

The only significant difference, was that the 1900 manual recommended holding the hands much lower, so that they could be used to block head and body shots with equal facility.

What I take away from this, is that taking a solar plexus punch with a 4 oz horse hair glove, wasn't as good as it was cracked up to be.

Tommy Gibbons said that he deliberately put his chin on offer, because he was terrified of taking a body shot from Jack Dempsey!

 

Why 1919?

Rather than 1915?

Clearly whatever else one thinks of Willard, he did not attend to his training and had gone back a long way. If matched with Gerry C, let's say, the 1919 Willard should be matched at that point with the Gerry C of the Spinks or Foreman fights, not of the Holmes fight.

 

I don't want to be mean to anybody here, but I see an element of injustice in the criticism of Jess Willard.

He has been put on trial for a long time now, and it is time that his critics were put on trial.

 

John Galt

This jumped out at me

"I watched a little more and Johnson looks as bad as Willard. Rushing in like a football player, he doesn't shuffle inside and maintain his balance. The fight looks like a toughman competition."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"maintain his balance"

But here is Johnson defending himself and his use of balance in his late interview with The Ring in July, 1946.

"knew how to stand properly to get the best leverage for a punch; knew the most important in boxing--how to feint . . ."

He then demonstrates to the observers

"I asked him to toss his left at me, then counter with a right. He did, but as he countered, he went out of position. That's what I was looking for. I soon did the same stunt and the Editor soon saw what I meant by the perfect stance. I purposely missed a punch and immediately let go one with the other hand, and brought my point out more clearly. How? By illustrating that when one has a perfect stance, he is always in perfect position to toss a punch with the other hand and land effectively."

Clearly this was a man who at least thought about stance and balance and staying on balance while throwing punches.

So a question and a thought.

Question---Could you tell me exactly at what point in the fight you see Johnson off-balance?

Thought---When it comes to stance and balance, doesn't Johnson have the credentials to be considered one of the ultimate experts, certainly of his own era, but really for any era. Few, indeed, have been more successful over such a long time--only one legitimate defeat and that in a finish fight in which he was well ahead over a more than twenty year period.

Merely a toughman?

My judgment is that this opinion is way over-the-top.

And another issue, touched on by Janitor. Is your way and style of boxing the ONLY way. Johnson's defense of how he did it would be his record. And that is a strong argument.

 

The Pottawatomie Giant fought flat footed and would have been a target for Holmes's piston like jabs. It may well have gone the full 15 rounds but it would be a UD for Holmes.

 

Seamus

--a complete oaf on film, who lost and/or surrendered to a completely undersized opponent, whose best victory is arguably a hugging match with an extremely disinterested, out-of-shape b-rater"

But I don't think we should dwell on Vitali's performances against Byrd and One-Round Sanders, nor his vision problems punching those two fellows to the left and right of Byrd.

Let's get back to Willard.

The old time sportswriters seem to agree that Willard was not all that into boxing, and rarely trained well. The lure of money, and perhaps fame, led him to put in the work before meeting Johnson. Off the flaws in his record you point to, and his other four films I have seen, your criticisms are not totally unfair, but off the Johnson film, they are wildly overblown. He showed me more athleticism against Johnson than Vitali did against Byrd, and, frankly, better ring generalship, unless we are supposed to be big on playing patty-cake with a jab against an opponent's glove. If you switch from the 1st to the 6th to 9th rounds of the Byrd fight, the deterioration in Vitali's style and footwork and his apparent fatigue is really quite noticeable. As I said, Willard seems as fresh in the 25th round as in the 1st or 12th or 20th. It might be unfair to compare Willard's best effort to Vitali's worst, and Vitali would most likely win a 12 rounder under his era's rule set, but if the Vitali of the Byrd fight were taken back to April, 1915 and put in the ring with Willard in a 45 rounder, I take Willard.

And that brings up the question of whether Willard should be judged on modern standards when he didn't fight under them? What would it matter to him if he could win fighting his way a century in the future? Like all athletes he sought and trained to win under the conditions of his own time.

Both Vitali and Willard could be called an oaf, but they also could be called an oak. They were big fellows, and their size, strength, and durability got them to the top--neither were as quick, coordinated, smooth, or as skilled as many smaller boxers, but size matters. Vitali certainly deserves to rate well above Willard for being the far more dedicated fighter who kept himself at top form for over a decade, and was much the more consistent. Willard only reached a brief peak and by the Moran fight was 25 lbs. overweight, and the other filmed fights merely show a fat, poorly-trained, aging fighter coming off long layoffs.

 

Well, he did get inside his way. If he came in a crouch, also a fatiguing move with a fight scheduled for 45 rounds, so one I imagine most old fighters would try to avoid, are you suggesting he go to the body, as I don't think he could have reached a man 6' 6 1/2" to the head from a crouch. I think he would have to straighten anyway once he got in close.

I repeat--when was he off balance? I didn't notice him slipping or stumbling about not only this fight or any others I have seen.

"Johnson, like Willard, exactly as he was at the time would not be competitive in the modern era"

Well, he probably never gave a great deal of thought to how to be competitive a century into the future. He did think a great deal about his own era and did very well in it.

"era equivalency"

An historically nonsensical concept. It is like criticizing Julius Caesar for being a bad general because he didn't know how to use artillery. It is equally valid to ask if a modern general could function in the Roman world.

It is why I judge resume the only fair way to rate fighters from different eras.

The rest is just judging on biases. It is natural for most to think of evolution leading to themselves and their eras in almost everything (Hegel enshrines this sort of thinking) but in fact we are just standing on a bank watching a roaring river called time rush past that will soon leave us far behind also. Nothing is the end point of evolution.

 

:good good thoughts

 

I think the big guy would benefit from modern times and Holmes may not benefit from the longer distance battles of Willard s day

 

Come on Ed. The defense, foot speed, judgment of distance, punch out put, and reflexes Vitali had are a quantum leap ahead of Willard’s. Willard could have been the least defensive heavyweight champion of all time.

Vitali owned smaller boxers. Willard could be outboxed by smaller men.

If they had fought, it would be a shut out. Willard would take a beating.

Much of Willard's poor legacy is on him. He was an inactive champion. No historian I have seen has him in their top 15.

 

Holmes wins this.

 

OK, the burden of proof lies with the person asserting something.

Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

You have made a number of assertions here, so that puts the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders.

You have asserted that Willard was a skilless oaf, but have made no effort to explain why.

You have asserted that he a lineal champion,would not only lose to the world class fighters of the 1980s, but also those who failed to cut it at world level.

The floor is yours, please present your evidence.

Also feel free to ask me to provide evidence, for any statement I have made that requires evidence.

You have further assert that certain people who beat him were ham n eggers, and that his second best win was against Carl Morris. While these points are of little significance to the overall argument, but are none the less wrong.