Were you not contending that the Johnson who Willard beat was not fat, old and disinterested? That I was making things up? Well, I provided you with 2 quotes from notable members of the fistic community who were in Havana stating otherwise. You have provided nothing.
I was contending that that wasn't why I chose Willard to go only 6 rounds. Again, you keep arguing an argument that I haven't even stepped foot into. At this point you are arguing against nonexistant points then asking if that's what I'm arguing then replying to yourself without letting me say yes or no.
Absolutely! Men watch boxing in black and white, not this pouffy newfangled colour ish. I hear that they've even got some "high definition" stuff coming out soon. Or it was out? Myself, I'm trying to get one of those hand crank thingies that runs on the silver nitrate film. Puts hair on your chest, that.
Oh but I do and I can say that in this section...the section where nothing can be proved or has too as long as any nostalgic expert backs it up. Go ahead PROVE Lewis who was knocked out by 2 bums defeats the mighty Willard who had the strength of 10 men and tied loggs on his back while running up mountains...go ahead PROVE it? Posting with reverse logic is EASY I can tell you that.Kudos to posters like Choklab and dagowop.I can see why they have their style BC it requires little effort with little brain power.
Lewis will win, unless his ego / a careless mistake allows Willard to land something serious, then he'll scream lottery punch. The problem here is Willard had little defense, could not counter, and average at best hand speed. He's pretty slow on his feet too. We are matching a master boxer type who hits harder, is more accurate, has better punch selection, better defense, and pretty much better everything except chin, vs Willard. The time and ending depend on how much Lewis wants to risk. I think its over inside 6 rounds, but if Willard manages to land something solid, Lewis might coast to take a decision. As always with Lewis, you magnify the puncher's chance, so an upset here is not out of the question.
Nothing sounds dumber then downplaying the sizemic shift in media quality over the last 100 years. Sarcasm doesn't change that, any more than sarcasm changes the fact that computers have advanced exponentially over the last 100 years.