Is Dempsey/Willard the Most Overrated Victory Ever?

With laudable consistency, you overlook the facts that don't suport your soundbite.

These fighters were every bit as much profesionals as the best of todays, probably more so.

A bar fighter from any era, would not have any more chance against Jess Willard than he would have against Wladamir Klitschko.

 

No. Willard had won his title by KOing a proven ATG HOFer, and his previous defense of the title (vs. Frank Moran) appears to have been considered his best career performance - and he was even heavier in that fight than he later would be for Dempsey. Despite his age and inactivity, Willard was also a legit world class fighter several years after Dempsey, beating a highly touted contender in Floyd Johnson and being considered for a title shot prior to his loss to Firpo.

Despite whatever perceived "flaws" or other criticisms you can make of Willard's career, the guy had demonstrated in the ring that he was a legit good, world class fighter and worthy champion.

 

Most contemporary reports say Willard had shown improved form just prior to the Johnson fight, and in his defense against Moran. Why do you believe otherwise?

Are you citing to any hard evidence which demonstrates he was clearly "shot" by the time he fought Dempsey? Or is that simply an assumption or inference based upon his weight (which was less than it had been against Moran) and inactivity?

Willard was still able to beat a leading contender years after losing to Dempsey. What did Cooney did after, or even leading into, the Spinks fight that was on par with that?

 

Seamus is clearly uneducated on the basics of boxing. to say willard wouldn't sniff the top 50 of today or that all the fighters then were just barroom fighters is not only insulting but actually very ignorant.

probably thinks boxing back then was just a crapshoot or a lottery, thousands of bar brawlers staggering around drunk swinging for the fences all with the same outside chance of being champion. no such things as talent, training or dedication - i guess the pundits and gamblers of the time imagined such things out of thin air !?

its a wonder why not every man wouldnt have tried his luck in the prize ring. in the random saloon brawl that passd for professional boxing. its a wonder anyone could have mistaken it for a sport worth paying to see at all ...

 

if that is true, why on earth had there been so much talk and words written on "sweet science" of boxingfor 100+years prior to jess Willard and why did most boxers spend so much time learning how to box ? why even the concept of boxing as opposed to brawling ? why so many fights to make you good enugh to be champion ?

also, when and how do you think it all changed ?

(obviously i dont seriously think you believ what you write so i cant expect proper answers but its interesting that youd even pretend to hold such views just as to hate a particular 'era'. its not realy an opinion that can be held consitently

 

this is true. i would give Willard the benefit of the doubt. i honestly believe the willard of the jack Johnson fighht would have given Dempsy a tougher fight. inactivity and age cant have done him any good at all.

 

C, the posters who have an agenda, believe that the fighters before TV, before the second WW were "primitive" bar brawler ",based on their own
prejudice or irrational thoughts. They see a clip of a famous oldtime boxer,with the herky-jerky hand cranked cameras and come to the conclusion that they look unskilled, clumsy etc. They most likely watch old Charley Chaplin movies and wrongly conclude that this is the way "oldtimers" walked. Let me assure them that my dad who boxed a bit, and was a boxing fan from 1916 on til 1983 saw the "oldtimers", and most of the boxers til the 1980 era, raved about Benny Leonard, Harry Greb,
Tiger Flowers, Jack Dempsey, Tunney, and the Armstrongs, Ross's, Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Ray Robinson,Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Kid Gavilan, Freddie Steele, Jake LaMotta, Charley Burley ,Billy Conn, Ezzard Charles era as well. The difference between these men and the older fighters was negligable. Todays cameras enhance a boxers ability,as opposed to the Fitz, Gans, Walcott, Ketchel era where they look awkward
as opposed to today's SUPERMEN . I go with the opinions of great writers of the past who saw these great fighters at their best,saw many of the modern fighters too, and STILL held the greats of the past in such high esteem. After all they saw them fight live, as opposed to the naysayers
who 90 years or so later ,watching less than 1% of their bouts, relegate
guys, some of whom I saw to "bar-fighters". Baloney I say...Cheers C.

 

I don't think that's "interesting" at all.

Tyson earned his "iconic" status by making a series of defenses and decisively beating every other title claimant. Liston just quit in his next defense after Patterson, made basically no effort to regain the title, and never was a serious factor at the world class level again. Hence, Ali is (rightfully) remembered as the guy who ushered in a new era, rather than Liston.