Kliltschko vs. Jack Johnson

Oh yes it makes a difference and you know it. I am 26 years old quite fit and train 3 times a week. My Dad 45, has quite a paunch and worked hard at construction in the not too distant past, now he works in an office. When we go out into the woods to make some lumber for their tiled stove I can´t keep up with the work with my old man. No chance. There is a difference. I just saw things like that too often to believe otherwise.

Yeah, but Wlad never fought anybody who was as tough or as durable as the opponents Willard fought. And I think Willard fought a few guys who could match Wlad in strength.

Like I wrote before that means nothing.

 

Well that was exactly my point.

And i'll say it again: when you do construction work for years, you have great strength specifically for doing construction work. But that doesn't mean you don't gain strength from lifting weights.

Well, the combinations weren't really popular yet because of the transition from bare knuckle boxing. Dempsey used them plenty in long fights. Other than that, they were pretty much a product of their ruleset, as are fighters today.
Willard is the perfect example of that. He would've never been champion under 12 or 15 round fights.

 

Janitor explained it in another post far better why strength through work is superior to strength through weights.

Johnson threw plenty of comnbinations against Willard for example. Combinations were commen back then just not as common as they are today - okay I think they are as common as today but not as common as 20-30 years back.
I agree Willard wouldn´t be champ nowadays just like Wlad wouldn´t be champ back then.

 

Willard I have read was a teamster who loaded and unloaded heavy cotton bales and handled a team of horses, which in itself probably developed hand strength and arm and shoulder muscles. The point isn't exactly if Wlad can train himself to match Willard in short bursts of strength. The point is that this heavy labor was Willard's job and he probably worked for more than ten hours a day for six days a week, week after week, month after month, year after year. Wlad might be stronger early, but would his stength endure through round after round of pulling and tugging with Willard. I would not be surprised if Willard outlasted him. His strength came from his whole life. I noticed that despite being younger and bigger and certainly well-trained, Corbett seemed to fade against Fitz. I wonder if being a bank teller just did not toughen him in quite the way, regardless of dedicated training, as being a blacksmith toughened Fitz.

 

Willard's chosen profession certainly would have made him better suited for manual labor than someone who was specifically trained for athletics, but the two cannot be compared interchangeably. I studied and worked in the health and fitness field for a number of years, and the common opinion, is that training for a given physical activity should be specific to the task performed. I have seen body builders tire on construction sites faster than 50 year old, deconditioned smokers, and have seen the latter of the two look very weak in a gym environment. While Willard was most likely a very strong man with many physical capabilities, Wlad is arguably better trained to be a prize fighter.

 

I admit I don't really know how much general top condition is transferable. Way outside of anything I have ever studied.

But Willard will not after all come into a fight cold--he would also specifically train for prize fighting--and as Janitor pointed out, he proved he could go 26 rounds under a hot sun and not appear anywhere near spent. Could Wlad?

I guess my bottom line point is--if Fitz were only a blacksmith, Corbett easily beats him, but Fitz is a man who was for years a blacksmith and ALSO a boxer. Does this give Fitz an advantage? Or Willard because he was a teamster? I think it probably does.

 

As someone who lifts both free weights, kettle bells, and other various awkward objects , I think I can hopefully clear the debate up here a little bit:

The reason you get levels of strength from lifting awkward objects like kettle bells ( or doing awkward exercises, such as lifting sacks of concrete, swinging a sledgehammer, doing dips with weight attached, or power cleaning a barrel, Donkey Kong style) is that you're strengthening the connective tissue, supporting muscles, and skeletal muscle that doesn't get worked through most free weight exercises. Doing nothing but free weights will make you look more impressive most of the time, but lifting the other objects (especially if you combine Olympic style lifting with that routine) will give you mind-numbing power and tie everything together. So, ideally, all those phases get used to maximize both sustained and maximum strength and power. Google "Hermann Goerner", and you'll see a man who utilized all 3 training methods to set records in feats of strength decades before the steroid era that still stand today, despite never really trying 100% to max out.

Now, it's important to remember that just because Wlad looks like a bodybuilder, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't do the "grunt work" exercises that are more about the steak than the sizzle. It's usually easy to tell when a fighter doesn't use free weights; it's much harder to tell just by looking when they don't do enough of the other stuff. It's usually when a fighter gets overpowered that that shows, and I haven't seen that happen to Wlad to suggest he's nothing but a free weight freak.

 

They probably would if they had more years for their style to evolve into the optimal style for their ruleset. But fact is, they just came fresh off the bare knuckle style and to make things worse, information spread went much, much slower during those days.


As for who would have more trouble adapting to the old/new style, it depends per fighter. Willard certainly wouldn't get far under modern rules. And like wise, Ali would be troubled by the older rules, although his size and athletic ability alone would get him very far... Johnson wasn't a big hitter (for a heavyweight) either, but look where he got. And Ali was every bit as strong and good at clinching.

So, because your dad is stronger than you, it's universally true?

By the way, strength does come with age, the fact that you list your father as 45 seems like "wow, and he's still strong?", but in terms of pure strength, most men still keep developing into their 30's and retain that during their 40's, unless of course they drive a cab all day and not work out for decades.

Okay, list the guys who could match Wlad in strength. Firpo? He is similar to Sam Peter, who was totally neutralised in every clinch despite being quite wild. Johnson, at 6'1 1/2 210lbs?

How does that stack up to for instance McCline, Austin, Thompson, Peter, Brewster, Mercer, Brock and Sanders, in terms of pure strength?


And Wlad never fought anyone as tough as durable as Willard's opponents? Really? Did Brewster get knocked down and out on an other occasion by a middleweight, like Johnson did? Or are you talking about Gunboat Smith who went the distance with Jess, but was stopped more often than Wlad has been knocked down? Carl Morris? Dempsey who was knocked down by a former light heavyweight, and knocked out by a 37 year old light heavyweight in one round?

Who are these guys who are tougher and more durable than Brewster, Peter, Mercer, McCline, Byrd, Ibragimov, Thompson et al? Because all of those were rarely down and when they were, it was against big, hard hitting 210+ heavyweights.



Again, i'm not saying Wlad "definitely" is stronger, but one thing we do know:

Wlad has proven his strength several time against men his own size or bigger, Willard hasn't.

 

No, it was an example, just like the other example I wrote down earlier in the thread. The thing is, I train, my Dad does not but is sitting in an office since about two years but worked hard his whole life and even so he´s older and not near anywhere my shape when the going get´s tough at manual work he´s much better than me.
Hard work through your whole life grants you more strength than you can get through weights. That´s my experience.

The thing is, I credit the people of the past, here meaning before or during WWI, as much tougher than today´s due to their harder life. Wlad grew up as a middle class kid, Johnson grew up pretty poor - also still better than many many others during that time. The life Johnson lead until he became a big name maks you tough, very tough. That isn´t about boxing or records. That´s about life itself and it´s perception. When it comes to toughness and durability imo the guys then beat the guys now because the conditions they lived under demanded it.

I think it´s funny that you think Peter and Co. are tougher than fighter like Johnson and Dempsey who proved their toughness in their whole life again and again. Actually, this might even be an insult to them.

And Johnson is stronger than any of Wlad´s opponents. I´m sure of that. Why am I? Because 20 rounds of constantly clinching and working in the clinch needs a huge amount of strength and endurance. None of them ever proved they have that and neither has Wlad.

If you think that those men, and Wlad, are as strong as people who did hard manual work their whole life than you are right. I don´t think so.

 

Okay, well it's your experience, but that hardly proves it.

For all we know, if your father had lifted weights three times a week during the same period when he worked, he may still have been stronger than you.

This is a great and valid point you raise. But also completely irrelevant to the scope of this discussion. I don't doubt that people 100 (or even 30) years ago, on average were tougher than we are today. Circumstances were shitty back then. However, tough boxers always have been around. It's not like every fighter today quits when they get hit in the face.Fact remains that Klitschko has always gotten up after being knocked down and never gave up on trying to get the win.



How does that disprove that Wlad's opponents are much bigger and as a consequence, stronger on average? You're changing the subject.

You're changing the subject again. I'm not saying Peter & co are tougher than the middleweights that Johnson beat up (although he never quit), i'm saying they are much bigger and in all likelyhood stronger, and that Wlad has proven beyond any doubt that he can boss men his size or large around in the ring, whereas Willard hasn't. Fact. And toughness has nothing to do with it.

And you think guys like McCline, Thompson, Peter, etc, couldn't throw middleweights and lightheavyweights around? The 20 rounds thing is stamina related, not strength related.


I do think it's funny you're 100% sure of this because he proved it for 20 rounds, but when Wlad proves that he is stronger than all of his opponents, who contrary to Johnson/Willard, are of his own size or bigger, while Willard never has, then it doesn't prove a thing?

 

That´s the closest to a prove I have and so I stick with it.

My Dad isn´t stronger than me. I always beat him at arm-wrestling :hey but he´s better at doing hard work over a long term. And fighting in a clinch for many rounds is not only about strength but also about strength for a long time.

Sure, there are tough guys around today but on average the fighters of the past were tougher - and I was talking about fighters before WWI, I think the living conditions improved since then continously. That´s what I am referring to.

You are right, I changed it and didn´t even notice

I never wanted to disprove that Wlad´s opponents were bigger but I don´t think that size has much to do with strength - at least not when we are talking hws, surely Wlad is stronger than Wilde - the bigger they get the less the difference in strength is compared to other big fellas.

Yeah, he had proven he can boss around the big fighters of his time but my point is that the fighters then are on average tougher, stronger and more durable than today´s fighters due to their living conditions.

Yeah, as if Johnson only fought mws and lhws. There was a great thread from SuzieQ not that long ago where he proved that Johnson fought his fare share of big fighters. And endurance has a lot to do with this subject. Even if today´s fighters would be stronger - I still disagree - than Johnson, they would tire were Johnson wouldn´t. That is important.

Your assumption Johnson and Willard never fought big fighter is just wrong. They did, not as big as Wlad´s opponents but that´s because on average people were smaller then. For the rest read up what I wrote a few lines up.

 

I didnt know this, but it dose not shock me and is consistent with my own observations.

 

When will you get it through your skull that Johnson did not only beat up middleweights and small heavyweights.

He is probably more proven against large heavyweights than any other champion before the 70s.

Can we agree this and move on please.

 

Fair enough Loewe, just one last thing.


You said you beat your father at arm wrestling. Any observer with no knowledge of sports and training, let's say a woman, would say "you're stronger than your father and you just proved it! (K)"

Likewise, any observer would conclude your father is stronger than you after seeing you tire during the lumber work while your dad kept on working.

So what's going on?

There are tons of ways to measure strength, but none of them is definite.

During strongman contests, the champion always loses big time on at least one exercise, if not multiple. Even Pudzianowski, one of the greater modern strongmen, lost at a few areas last year, but won most others by a landslide.


So, it is clear that one can be very strong at one type of exercise, but still fail at an other.

And here is the thing. We know Wladimir Klitschko is very strong at handling his opponents in the clinches, because we have seen him manhandle pretty much every opponent who was over 220lbs or even bigger than himself.

Willard, on the other hand, did not do so. So while i don't doubt Willard was strong, we don't know if he's strong in that area also. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But we don't know; about Klitschko we know for sure.

I'll bet you that Ali has the bench press and squat numbers of a little school girl, but he still bossed all his opponents around in the clinches, including Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Lyle, Shavers, Norton, etc. He is proven at having "useful" strength for boxing.

First of all, we cannot agree on this, and second, Klitschko is not from before the 70's.

 

What do you not agree?

Are you going to dispute that Johnson fought a lot of large heavyweights and gave up weight and reach in many of his fights?

Can you name a champion before the 70s who fought more bouts against such fighters?

Unless you can come up with some concrete answers to the contrary you might want to stop banging on about Johnson only having proved himself against middleweights.