1919 Jess Willard vs. 1988 Larry Holmes

Can't resist throwing this in!

http://www.cable-car-guy.com/images/bigv/2014/willard_moran_mpworld_19160408_001.JPG

 

No.. I understand that its an "opinion," and studying styles, flaws, strenghts, physical characteristics and the culture of a given sport at a given time are the best methods for simplifying the forming of the that opinion. Obviously one can never say for certain if one fighter can beat another without actually putting them in the same ring, but that method is unavailable, so I use the next best thing.

I did name Willard's flaws several posts ago. And while there are other factors, I consider them to be significant ones.

Indeed. But seeing him in two or three of the biggest fights of his career is enough to get an idea, let alone the ample footage available of fighters who came later.

Again.. Its an opinion. I've already stated above that the only way to guarantee an outcome is for that outcome to have already happened, and in the case of fantasy fights there are no such outcomes. But I consider the study of a fighter in action a much more reliable source than the mere fact that fighter A. had higher status in his own time than fighter B. did in his.. Hell would you rank Iran Barkley higher than Thomas Hearns even in the SAME era despite of what happened in their actual fights? I wouldn't.

The sentence in bold is the crux of the issue. Its fine to rank a fighter higher based on legacy. But when discussing head to head outcomes, it offers little in drawing a conclusion.

Which is primarily what I am doing and I think its a very important factor in the equation.

This depends entirely on which two fighters you're comparing. I rate Marciano leagues higher than Rid**** Bowe based on resume, but its not a match up that I'd give Rocky much of a chance at winning. But that's an argument for an entirely different discussion.

Definitely and I agree. But this example doesn't really apply given that the champion and the journeyman are both members of the same period and same environment making it more difficult to favor the lesser. Now take a journeyman like Ross Purity.. A big man with a big punch and a solid chin who troubled or even beat a lot of top raters... Place him in the ring with one of the weaker lineal champs of the past like Leon Spinks, Marvin Hart, or Jim Braddock... Who would you favor?

I agree. But its not unreasonable to pick what we see in actual fights over a man's credentials on paper.

 

Willard is another untold story that needs to be explained .. the man did not even put on a pair of boxing gloves until his late 20's .. you cannot overlook this fact and how he essentially went straight into the professional ranks with no training .. What he managed to accomplish is actually pretty amazing ..

Willard was a naturally gifted athlete in addition to being a hard man from a hard era. Although pretty lean he had significant power and physical strength, terrific stamina, decent speed, an iron chin and a world class heart to go along with this massive height and reach. In my opinion under different circumstances he would have been a world class super heavyweight. However, in reality, he simply never had a chance to properly learn the trade.

 

Indeed but you can't have it both ways.

Either a relatively inexperienced champion is an indictment on both eras, or it is an indictment on neither.

Either a fighter winning the title with limited experience is lauded in both era's, or he is lauded in neither.

 

I dont think anyone here will be putting Willard on the top of their ATG list and probably among the lowest somewhere next to Nicolai Valuev,Tommy Burns and Primo, Corbett,Fitz,Etc. but Willard may beat some of these guys and I dont see him getting embarrassed. He got smoked by prime Dempsey but Patterson got smoked by Liston and Ingo and Liston by Ali......I think Willard is being highly underrated, the guy showed great heart vs Dempsey and still KO'd Johnson

 

Well, he lost to Gunboat Smith and George Rodel around his prime. And he doesn't look great against a poor version of Jack Johnson, his best win.
It's clear enough that he was beatable, and plenty of fighters would beat him.

On the other hand, he was probably tough enough and good enough to be a contender in any era and beat some of the other champions there's been.

 

Poor example.. when comparing two fighters of the same era its much easier to pick a winner based on resume because they are being sized up to that of a comparable field of talent.. Willard had no defense, held his guard dangerously low, his stance too wide by reasonable standards and had mixed results against weak opposition.. Incidentally Kubrat Pulev was viewed as a weak challenger by those who followed his career. His performance against Tony Thompson left little doubt in my mind that Klitscko was going to have an easy night, but that's not even relevant.

I don't know what other people are claiming.. All I know is that I'd rather form my opinions by actually seeing what two fighters looked like than to read a piece of paper, especially if you're matching up two fighters from totally different periods, in which case credentials mean little.. Saying that a champion from hundred years ago would beat a contender today automatically based on higher status is like saying that Sigmund Freud would be more qualified to counsel people today than a fresh graduate out of psychology school just on name recognition alone. Obviously you can see why this logic doesn't work as things have changed.

I'm basing my opinions of Willard on how he looked against Johnson and a few others. If you're suggesting that he should be judged based on how he looked at a much earlier point in his career, then I'll remind you that you'd be looking at a much less experienced and less polished rendition of a man who never had much experience to start with... So I don't see how that helps.

Fair enough, but in this specific case how strong is Willard's resume when contrasted to a lot of modern champions and high ranked contenders? He became champion by beating a man who was on the ass end of his career, was significantly smaller and took 26 rounds to do it. I dont' see much depth or film which makes him look impressive.

Making assumptions also has a lot to do with giving a man the benefit oof the doubt based on what you see on paper or read from biased ssources.. Also keep that in mind.
I

I don't make assumptions. I study fighters from an all around perspective.. Their styles, their physical attributes, their backgrounds, the conditions they fought under, their records, etc, etc,.. Then I draw my conclusions.. You seem to use a lot of the latter criteria but not so much of the lesser.

If you think so then that's fine. But he'd be no picnic for the men I listed.

I'm not concerned with using caution when making an opinion on a boxing chat forum, especially when my opinions are based on what I've seen. You have a lot of people on here who claim that one fighter would positively kill another, even though they've never seen either in the ring... That's what I call lacking in caution..

 

Yeah but would that hundred be able to beat the giant if they were around in his times with the same training methods and experience? I very much doubt it myself...

 

It was a slight exaggeration on my part, so don't take it so literally. But incidentally, its not out of the question that highly accomplished amateurs like Felix Savon, or Alexander povetkin might have beaten him, especially in a shorter scheduled fight.

In fairness, I think landed a punch on an exhausted 37 year old man who had only fought a handful of times in five years and in the 26th round of a fight doesn't warrant much merit. Do I think Willard could crack? certainly. But so could a lot of heavyweights, including plenty who never went anywhere.

I agree.

 

That's an entirely different argument. You could say the same in reverse and ask yourself " what if Willard was born in 1980 and had manny steward or someone of the sorts as a trainer?" But we can't really do this in fantasy fights, as the purpose is to compare fighters as they actually were and not morph them into other people.

 

A few things w the Willard - Dempsey bout ... aside from Willard's age and obvious inactivity, under modern rules without Dempsey being able to stand over Willard and pummel him, it may have been a whole other fight ... as it was Dempsey was dangerously close to punching himself out as is ..

 

Willard was nothing special but he wasnt a total bum either. A year or so ago I edited together the most complete version of Willard-Johnson, which was Willard's career best performance. Willard fought a very smart fight. Whether he did it naturally or stuck to a predetermined gameplan is another question but he starts out slow, relying on his size (his greatest asset) to make Johnson come to him and force the fight. On the inside he turns one of Johnsons greatest advantages against him: Typically Johnson would grab, hold, and outmuscle his man on the inside to wear him down and control him. He tries this with Willard as well and impressively matches Willards strength but Willard was so much bigger and with his youth and less ringwear he is able to match Johnson inside round after round and eventually it is Johnson who begins to tire. Willard also consistently throws long, hard right hands to the body. Johnson is usually able to minimize the effect of these by leaping back but occasionally, and with greater frequency as the fight goes on they land well and this takes its toll also. In order to score against a foe so much larger and rangier Johnson is forced to leap in over and over with volleys of blows. He scores very well and really takes the fight to Willard by doing this. Willard has almost no defense beyond his height and as such he just absorbs punishment. But he is fairly durable and as a result the effort of constantly having to leap in and flurry taxes Johnson. As the fight wears on Willard, who was clearly outpointed, gains in confidence and over the last 5 rounds or so increasingly builds his pace, output, and aggressiveness. Johnson can be seen to tire and this is very apparent in the 25th and 26th rounds. As Johnson visibly tires Willard begins trying to land the one-two upstairs but falls short. Finally he gets Johnson into a position where he can move backward any further in a corner, pops a jab and then drops over a right hand crusher that finishes Johnson. Watching the fight play out and really ****yzing what both guys are doing shows Willard wasnt totally hopeless as a fighter and really knew how to use his size and durability. He had four bad achilles heels though: 1. His defense was absolutely terrible. 2. He hated training. 3. He was awkward and not very coordinated. and 4. He was pretty slow.