jess willard vs ron lyle....

Bummy Davis · Sep 27, 2012

other than Lyle -Foreman, and Shavers who was beatable, Ron Lyle failed to impress me as a puncher of real note. Ron was a big strong guy but so was Jess, I can see Jess winning a decision and I can see Ron outworking Jess but IMO Jess gets a UD

lufcrazy · Sep 27, 2012

Not even sure who it's against because I stopped reading at "Willard vs" whoever he is, I pick the other guy

janitor · Sep 27, 2012

John Galt said: ↑

Willard came along in an era when a big guy could walk off the farm at age 29, put on boxing gloves and be a world champion in a few years.

Click to expand...

No he didn't.

Then as now, a big guy who walked off the farm at age 29 and put on boxing gloves, would usualy get destroyed.

If O'Halloran had fought in that era, he would have been an elite fighter too, he would probably be a legend.
Click to expand...

Preposterous.

If a fighter is not quite second teir in his own era, then he almost certainly isnt going to be first teir in any other.

There is always some kind of talent around.

Watching Willard on video, knowing that he took up boxing at age 29 and became a champion should be proof that boxing had not evolved much at that point.

The time when a man could take up boxing at 29 and become a champion probably ended with Willard. Dempsey was a quantum leap forward from Willard in terms of skill, conditioning, and technique.

Click to expand...

Ron Lyle was 30 when he turned profesional.

Does this prove that boxing had not evolved in the 70s?
Click to expand...

janitor · Sep 27, 2012

John Galt said: ↑

O'Halloran was not an "A" level fighter in his era, but on video he looks better than Willard. Put O'Halloran in Willard's era and he is probably a champion.
Click to expand...

You could make an argument that Audley Harrison looked better than Oscar Bonavena or even George Foream on film from a technical standpoint.

That dosn't mean that he would beat them or surpass their acomplishments, in their era.

You cannot simply dismiss what fighters have proven in the ring when comparing them.

PowerPuncher · Sep 27, 2012

I'd have thought Bugner would be a better example of Lyle dealing with a SHW than O'Halloran? Or Foreman and Ali for that matter

janitor said: ↑

They are name fighters who were either well past their prime or coming off serious losses.

None were ranked at the time Lyle beat them.
Click to expand...

Shavers was pretty much prime, Bugner maybe a bit past it, I'm not Bugner expert but he was at a good level. The other 3 past prime, a moot point though given Willard's best win was well past prime and his second best doesn't register over the others mentioned

Oh I missed off Buster Matthis

janitor said: ↑

You could make an argument that Audley Harrison looked better than Oscar Bonavena or even George Foream on film from a technical standpoint.
Click to expand...

You'd get laughed at

janitor · Sep 27, 2012

PowerPuncher said: ↑

Shavers was pretty much prime, Bugner maybe a bit past it, I'm not Bugner expert but he was at a good level.

Click to expand...

These are probably his best two wins.

If Shavers was in his prime, then he clearly didn't occupy the lofty place in the division that he later would. The conclusions that flow from that are self evident.

My problem is that neither of these guys enjoyed a strong standing at the time.

The other 3 past prime, a moot point though given Willard's best win was well past prime and his second best doesn't register over the others mentioned

Click to expand...

Johnson might have been past his prime, but he was the champion. If rankings had existed throughout Willards career, he would probably have beaten other fighters who were top 10 at the time.

You'd get laughed at
Click to expand...

My point is that looking better than somebody on film, does not mean that you will beat them, or even be competitive against them.
Click to expand...

janitor · Sep 28, 2012

John Galt said: ↑

Janitor, Lyle was 30 when he turned pro, but he was an Olympic caliber amateur when he turned pro. He had stopped the 1972 U.S. Olympic team heavyweight as an amateur. He didn't step off the farm at 29 and into the boxing ring. Lyle had skills, technique and experience.
Click to expand...

I think I am right in saying that Lyle came to boxing prety darn late, due to his stay in prison. It is also difficult to establish when exactly Willard donned the gloves for the first time.

Either way, you are missing the point. The fact that Willard progressed so rapidly as a fighter should be held in his favour not against him. Nobody criticises Joe Louis or Mike Tyson, or their eras by implication, because they had such meteoric rises.

With Willard, we have to either believe what we see on video, and what we see is a fighter with no skills, or technique, or we have to believe what we hear/read from people who think boxing has not progressed over the years and who believe that Willard was a great boxer. I'll go with what I see and what I see is a fighter, Willard, who had "Toughman Contest" level skills and technique.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think the film backs up your asertion that Willard had no skills. In fact the current heavyweight division is being dominated by two fighters who employ a strikingly similar technique.

Historians and contemporaries did not see Willard as a "great boxer". They saw him as a big fighter who knew how to use his size, and possesed incredible durability, but lacked killer instinct. They were right.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

jess willard vs ron lyle....

Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

jess willard vs ron lyle....

Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

lufcrazy requiescat in pace

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member

janitor VIP Member