Jess Willards athletic background

if Syracuse had just recruited Kansas in the early part of the 20th century...what do you think that 11 second 100 yard time on grass (probably wearing jeans, straw hat, work boots or barefooted), without starting blocks, converts to today with the new tracks, shoes, and PEDs? Do you think Jess barely beats Usain Bolt or would he smoke him? Has anyone gone below 9 seconds for 100 meters yet? 11 seconds for 100 yards, untrained, on grass, could that be an 8.8 100 meters on a surface built for speed, with starting blocks and all of the new equipment?

 

Actually, this is a clever line of argument.

If we take all of the track and field fights on this forum seriously, then Willard's claim is far more extreme than it looks.

 

I don't doubt that Willard may have been a decent athlete when younger. Anyone that starts boxing that late and goes on to become a recognised world champion in only a few years is clearly a cut above most other competitors in raw abilities and progress rate. Ultimately, of course, it should have no influence on what we see of him on film as a boxer, except perhaps in discussions about what if scenarios.

 

It's a pain to find, but there's an article breaking down a game where booth Klitschko's play a blindfolded girl, though in fairness the girl was Elisabeth Paehtz, it concluded anyone that thinks they can actually play chess believes in Santa, I think only one move they made made any kind of sense.

 

I disagree a bit. If you are good at a few track and field events, the chances are you are a good athlete. The disconnect here is Willard looks clumsy in the ring. He doesn't have good balance, or speed.

 

I ran the 100yds, 200yds, and competed in the long jump for both my school and college.Played Rugby and cricket for both too. In the ring I had slow feet. Success in some disciplines doesn't indicate athleticism per se,imo.eg, I had zero coordination for the high jump,vaulting the pommel horse,triple jump[hop step & jump in my day,] and couldn't run with a foot ball, I had a good accurate kick, and was fast into position, but couldn't travel with any control over the ball.
Willard does look ungainly and slow but he really didn't need a lot of speed afoot, his M .O. was to wait and let his opponents run into his jab ,and ,if they got past it uppercut them.

 

I could agree with this.

 

**** me!There's a first!
Or did you mean ?"I could agree with this, but I won't!"

 

Well we know what Lennie did to Curley!

 

I did an 11.3 100 yard dash in my youth. And I wasn't wearing a straw hat, jeans, carrying a pitchfork.

 

Elisabeth Paehtz is a female Grandmaster (I think she's top 20 in the world among women) so of course pretty much anyone who doesn't play (or prepare for) competitive chess full time is going to get trounced very, very easily. I can consistently beat the chess program on my laptop when it's set to 1900 and occasionally at 2100, but when I look at a grandmaster game I literally have NO idea what either player is trying to do. None.

I'd have to study chess the way med students study medicine before I could make a move that "made sense" against a grandmaster.

 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1621715

I'm not into chess, but you can check the moves yourself, I heard they made no sense.

 

The main problem with this thread isnt if willards numbers are accurate. We have two different agendas being used on the forum with only a handful of people taking a moderate, middle approach.

If we somehow dug up info proving willards numbers were correct, the cynics and skeptics would just shift the goal post and find something else to criticize about willard.

If they were proven to be false, the pro old school people would just find some other obscure facts to make their case.

We need to have an open and honest discussion on how to properly compare eras. Both sides highlight the best parts of the eras they support and ignore or downplay the flaws. Shits getting kinda old and there arent enough people willing to concede and just use sarcasm or a crapload of logic fallacies.