1919 Jess Willard vs. 1988 Larry Holmes

What blows your argument out of the water here, is that Vitally Klitschko has been a dominant belt holder in recent years, with almost exactly the same style as Willard.

We can put up footage of them and compare them if you want.

You are making claims of enormous consequence based on the film evidence here, and it doesn't really back up what you say.

 

Stylistically Willard was awful for Johnson, especially this version! Surely your knowledge of techniques and fundamentals is rather basic if you can't comprehend that

Do you not consider the fact Johnson not being in a position to punch, gives him a greater chance of evading Willard's punches? Consider Johnson was a fighter who relied on defence and counter punching. Being out of position can punch also draw Willard into throwing punches. Willard wasn't the type of guy to lead a fight, he's certainly not going to play to Johnson's strengths, why would he? Johnson also had a lot success in clinches, however Willard dwarfed Johnson just as much for strength as he did in terms of height. You mentioned how Johnson should have fought out of a crouching style, similar to the likes of Joe Frazier. Your calling upon a defensive genius to adapt a style designed to pressure his man with a relentless work rate over a 45 round fight at the age of 37 and in the worst shape of his career. Your effectivley asking Chris Byrd to come out at Vitali Klitschko, mimicking a style he has never fought at.

starting to think you may be an alt of mine, because I can't take your points seriously with such flawed logic

 

Hmmm maybe an old, out of shape Gene Tunney with a fair amount of ring rust (not that there was such a thing in the ring) minus a bit of punching power, going full steam ahead against Primo Carnera in a fight to the death

 

Holmes would have diced Willard to pieces. Larry excelled against tall fighters from Roy Williams to Leroy Jones to Gerry ****ey to even edging Carl Williams past his own best. Jess would only have two inches in reach on him and Larry's huge speed advantage would be far too great.

 

I don't really understand what you mean, I'm young foolish, I make mistakes. But I don't see why you find that comment so ridiculous? Johnson would have been in range of Willard's punches, whilst the opposite would not have been true, so adopting a slightly different stance primarily to avoid a punch isn't that ridiculous, certainly no more so than your criticism of Johnson not adopting a crouching stance, which also allows Willard to tie him up easier, as well as the chance to lean on Johnson, which in the long would take a fair bit of energy from Johnson. Do you frown upon Pernell Whitaker every time he avoids a punch and is not in position to throw one himself and not bobbing and weaving, working his way inside?

In terms of era equivalency they do. Well in my opinion anyway, I guess that's where we differ. In fact, Byrd probably has a slightly better chance stylistically as Vitali leads a lot more than Willard, creating more oppurtunity for counter punches.

 

I'm pretty confident that Gerry ****ey would have beaten Jess Willard convincingly. That fight isn't going no 26 rounds, so Gerry's stamina issues wouldn't even be a problem.

 

Yeah I can't see the logic in comparing a guy who someone walked up to and suggested that he go into boxing because of his size and who had crude skills at best to a man who started young with a seasoned trainer, went through the olympics and who's skills are far more correct.. Vitali Klitscko was a professionally trained world class athlete. Jess Willard was just a big man who on film looks as though he took a crash course on boxing. Now take the Willard who was 37 years old and off for three years that fought Jack Dempsey and frankly I've had business associates in suits and ties who would have made better opponents.. The Roy Jones who outboxed John Ruiz would have made Willard look about as skilled as a pile of wet towels.. Willard doesn't belong in too many head to head matchup discussions.

 

That is just the point though, many of them master the fundamentals then quickly abandon them. The "fundamentals" were almost exactly the same in Willard's day as they are now. Some boxing manuals from that era are still in print. You are making massive inferences based on a couple of technical shortcomings, which they simply don't support.

 

Then your confidence is grossly misplaced.

You are confidently picking a man who consistently f***** up at this level, to beat a man who generally delivered at this level.

If your prediction could ever be tested, we would call that hubris.

 

Pretty much every point that you have made in this post, has been demolished previously in this thread.

You would have done well to read it before posting.

 

There are two serious problems with your argument here.

For one thing, we don't even know if Willard's early record is complete.

For another, even if we assume that it was, it doesn't really meet your burden of proof.

There have been examples of:

Fighters starting boxing professionally at a similar age, and going on to success in later era's e.g. Ron Lyle.

Fighters winning the title within very short period of time from their professional debut, or a very small number of fights.

If your argument is that the age at which Willard took up boxing, precludes the possibility of him having become good, then I'm afraid it simply doesn't.

 

If only they were both tested at the SAME level, which in this case would be a prime Larry Holmes. I'm not even sure that Willard would beat the aged 1980 version of Jimmy Young whom ****ey battered.

 

I've read it. And its the same thing I've been reading for years, which is basically a house built out of cards

 

Now that is an interesting statement.

You and other people of the same viewpoint, are the people making far reaching and specific assertions, without the necessary evidence to back them up.

That is the real house of cards.