Why would losing to smaller guys mean he's not a great athlete? Are you saying Carnera was not a super athlete?
LOL criticizing an old fighter on a classic boxing forum atsch. You're setting yourself up for lots of slings and arrows from guys who think any boxer from before WWII, nay WWI, would destroy any boxer from the 21st Century.
Actually quite a lot of people thought that he was invincible. He had beaten Jack Johnson, who himself had an aura of invincibility. He would have been a strong favourite over any potential opponent. His early losses were chalked up to inexperience.
He fought a great fight against Johnson. Took an incredible amount of damage, but remained energetic, poised, and sharp. https://streamable.com/fox4 He was really in control by round 20, when he started connecting more of his 1-2's. Although you can still clearly see a shell of Johnsons brilliant combo of footwork and defense. Edit: It's surreal seeing both fighters pushing off the ground like that in round 20.
So beating Jack Johnson made him seem invincible even though he had lost to a non-descript 175-lber a few fights prior? :think
Yes that is how the media at the time perceived him. If you dont believe me, you can always go and look for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong. Recent experience should tell you that a year is a long time in boxing.
You should read the post I responded to. I was explaining that it should have already been more than clear that Willard was not some invincible incredible super athlete.
Yeah, but people don't just become invincible overnight after a career like his. Maybe in the comics, but not in real life. I guess people back then were even less astute than I'd suspected.
He never said invincible. The man was a premiere athlete of his time. Strength, muscle, speed, endurance, stamina, etc. Competing at the world class of a popular sport.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that serious people really thought that Willard was invincible or unbeatable because he outlasted an aging Jack Johnson who some suspected threw the fight. More importantly, to your earlier post, there has never been a myth that super-heavyweights are invincible.
He can reply to my comment if he thinks that I misinterpreted what he was getting at. The bottom line is that Dempsey exposed a man who had already been exposed several times before against far lesser fighters. His skills, balance, etc. also left much to be desired, even if he survived the crude five-second onslaught from the footage you posted.