Jess Willard vs Vitali Klitchsko

Jack Johnson won 13 fights in a row after losing to Willard, and if you take out the Willard loss Jack Johnson didn't lose for 21 years, winning 39 fights.

 

I just explained to you how Vitali is effective and how Willard is not.

I just showed you how Willard got smashed up by a dentist.

At this point its not a lack of my trying to explain that is failing here, it is YOUR trying to be wilfully ignorant that is succeeding.

 

Here is Briggs' boxrec record:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/4629

1 Pedro (20-8-1)
2 Alexander (19-8-1)
3 Calloway (70-11-2)

x Vitali Klitschko - loss

4 Smith
5 Mireles
6 Greer
7 Zumbano
8 Phelps
9 Carmack
10 Petranyi
11 Marrone
12 Zarate

Not only am I correct but those three "bums" have fairly decent winning records.

And now that you have been proven to be a

1) liar and
2) idiot,

you may go **** yourself with a broomhandle.

You contribute nothing to the discussion at all.

 

I'll gladly compare Johnson's 13 wins to Briggs'

We're talking about ACTUAL, utter bums here.

Should I mention the mighty Arthur Cravan (debut) or Bob Wilson (debut)? Or the other debut fighters a seasoned world champion somehow overcame? Wait, maybe we ought to talk about THIS GUY : http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/11648

Or THIS GUY: http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/10589

I like how he managed to give guys with losing records chances, like (lol) Farmer Lodge (12-14) and the mighty Marty Cutler (0-10) who lost by ko every time

No really: http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/11653

There's even a picture of this little dwarf next to Jack Marty did have some newspaper draws to qualify him to face JJ though

It wasn't all bad, though. JJ did face 21-20 Thompson who had, technically a winning record.

This was fun.

Try again.

 

Bit,

If this is a boxing contest is nolo contendere!

Vitlai never lost more than 3 rounds on any score card in his entire ring career, which consisted of far more fights vs better boxers. Let that sink in for a moment. He was that hard to out point.

Willard by contract lost to the likes of Tom McMahon, George Rodel ( a chinny white hope of the times ) GunBoat Smith, and lost via TKO to Joe Cox.
For those unfamiliar with the above names, only Smith was viewed as a top 5 fighter of the times, and that is debatable

Willard also has two draws. Being a skilled boxer was not this thing. Post the Dempsey massacre, he was easy picking for others.

If this was auto racing Willard would be large and old generic Family station wagon with Vitali being the Mercedes-Benz Maybach, which also happens to be heavily armored.

 

Not sure why the Vitali guys need to denigrate Jess, this is why a debate thread suggested by cross trainer is a good idea.

I am not a Vitali guy, but I do think he beats Willard and stops him in under 6 (my prediction was 3 I think). I think he is the superior fighter and wins....but not because Willard is a bum (my word that does not help Vitali’s standing in any way), but because I think he is better at what he does and will be able to counter and offset what Willard would attempt.

 

I've never really thought much of Willard anyway. He could give some guys tough fights due to his size and heart and chin. He was strong in mauls and could chop away in close with some effect. That's the good news. The bad news is that he's in a terrible matchup vs Vitali because I can see literally nothing he does that would be problematic for Vits.

I actually think it might go longer than that because Willard was a tough guy who had a lot of heart. Dempsey literally broke his face to bits and he came back for more until he was stopped. Frankly I think many fighters would have thrown in the towel after that first round. Vitali rarely goes all out so I see a methodical beat down until the ref calls a stop.

 

Nah , Vitali is a station wagon as well.

In his prime , Lewis was a Merc , but against Vitali he was a rusted up old VW Jetta. Still won.

Willard and Vitali were exactly the same. The only reason Willard wins is because of his superior reach and because he was able to beat SHWs with long reaches wile Vitali was not.

Dan Dailey- 6'6 , 84 inch reach
Carl Morris - 6'4 , 81 inch reach.

Vitali didn't like to fight tall guys who out reached him. His record proves it so he probably wouldn't even have fought Willard if he was around during his era.

 

thats a loss, so categorically its not a 13 fight winning streak that you tried to claim it was.
come back to me when you are ready to admit you are wrong, and I'll forgive both your rudeness and mistake.

 

I'd say Vit win s but not in a particular dominant fashion. Jess wouldn't just lay down and surrender ,that's for sure. He'd make it awkward for Klitschko for long period s and take some hard shot's. But near the end of the fight Jess would finally be dropped .But certainly no walk over for Vit.

 

As usual Dino, you have a lot to learn. He didn't like to fight opponents with a big reach? Really he took the Lewis fight on less than 2 weeks notice, and Lennox had a listed 84" reach. So much for your theory.

Others I pulled

Kevin Johnson = 82 inch reach
Larry Donald = 81 inch reach
Kirk Johnson = 81 inch reach
Gomez = 80 1/2 reach
Briggs = 80 inch reach
Purrity = 80 inch reach
Solis = 79 inch reach
Williams = 79 inch reach
Sullivan = 79 " reach
Francis = 79 " reach

Timo Hoffmann - Not listed but very likely over 79"

I'll stop here, but as you can see what you wrote again is not true. The opposite is true! Vitali fought more men with a 79" reach or greater than the vast majority of champions.

 

Yeah, it would certainly cut down on the insults to the fighters.

All we need is a volunteer who opposed Carnera in real life, and would be willing to take his side for the sake of argument. And then we will be good to go.

 

Yeah, one really does not make a solid case until you have looked at the holes others can poke into your claim. It is then that you begin to get a balanced view of whether you hypothesis was correct or incorrect.

I am not much on insults (as I get older lol) and hating on fighters or people as I did as a young man.

Generally I find that when people resort to that, it reflects that they are unable to intelligently articulate their beliefs or look to divert that they are not really sure why they believe merely that they do believe it without reason (not even meaning that the belief is wrong, just not well thought out or understood)...or some people are just angry, all the time at anybody the come across lol

 

Suck Dino's schlong