Vitali Klitschko vs Jess Willard 15 rounds

how did eh gain confidence after lewis?

his best opps up to lewis were lewis n byrd. best after is 38 year old nobody sanders, and 6 round sam peter.

 

Then I'll rephrase that to "Willard frankly looked awful in his fights that are still available".

 

While I don't necessarily agree with you, you do have a point that there are superficial similarities that I never thought about before.

 

The Corrie Sanders fight made me a believer. Prior to it I was of the opinion that Vitali was from the "Lurch" school of Frankenboxing and that Sanders would light him up like a bonfire on Guy Fawkes. Except, after the first few rounds, Sanders could barely land a decent shot on him, and as a long time Sanders follower, I never saw him struggle to land on a guy like that before. Vitali's control of distance and reflexes were phenomenal.

 

I find it interesting how people manage to convince themselves of an equivalency when all the evidence is actually before our eyes to say "t'ain't so!"

I think that it stems from the Johnson and Dempsey factors.

Johnson fans can't believe that he lost to a farmhand, and big up Jess in order to minimize the loss. Dempsey fans like the Willard win because it gives them a pedestal from which to proclaim him able to do the same to any amount of modern SHW champions.

Unfortunately the truth is that Jess Willard was never really very good. His skills really are pretty damn bad, and given when he started boxing - is this a surprise? Personally I'd be surprised if some guy can waltz in from the cornfield and display world class boxing skills by osmosis.

Despite this, he was successful because he was a very big, strong man with excellent stamina. He had good power and a good chin. He had a huge heart.

I don't find it surprising that he managed to wear out an old Johnson whose mauling tactics played straight into the hands of a bigger, younger man.

I don't find it surprising that Dempsey, a man who literally wrote the book on punching power, should find the gaps in a slower, less skilled guy and knock him the spark out.

But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that he can in any form hang in there with Vitali Klitschko, who was not only physically superior - yes, I said it, and just look at their physiques to see who is carrying pudge and who is built out of stones - but also miles ahead technically.

Should this be a surprise?

No. One guy has been fighting since childhood, and the other took up boxing when most guys retire. To assume (against the face of the evidence, to boot!) that Willard = Vitali, is to greatly devalue the heritage and skill that goes into boxing, since any guy off a farm can do it.

 

That is a more reasonable statement I think.I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is no longer a sweeping generalization.

 

Which fights of Willard's were held on docks,and in saloons?

 

I think Janitor is saying he sees similarities between them .The main difference I see is Vitali threw a lot more leather and went for the ko when the opportunity presented itself,or when his opponent showed he was ready to go.Willard was just about as passive a champion as you will find , he often stated he didn't like to hurt anyone and ,just as long as they didn't get too ambitious he was content to coast along, keeping them on the end of his telescopic jab. Most couldnt hurt him and he had little interest in hurting them.
Wlad has a lot more aspects to his game than Willard but never went for the kill until his," water softens stone attrition behind the jab style,"had eroded his opponents resistance and will.Not exciting to watch, deadly dull in fact ,but also deadly effective.

 

I'll give you that Willard was a big strong guy with a lot of heart, but that's where the comparison ends. These Klitschkos and Lewis, just as amatuers were fighting guys from Cuba, the USA, former Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, etc. Willard didn't have any of that experience, these modern haevyweights were so much more polished fighters. Of course, Willard, Johnson, Jeffries, Dempsey, and Tunney were tough and skilled but compared to the modern competetition, they're all greatly lacking.

 

You make a reasonable breakdown of what Vitally does, but your breakdown of what Willard does, is a series of largely unsupported assertions.

If Willard is making errors, then you should be able to pinpoint them on the film.

You are also criticizing Willard for using orthodox techniques such as blocking, while praising Vitally for using less orthodox techniques like pulling his head back.

What if it was the other way round.

You praise Vitally for his use of movement, which is fair enough, but would you really be criticizing him for nullifying Peter by clinching?

You criticize Willard's use of "weak looking uppercuts", but give Vitally a pass for failing to use uppercuts.

It is very apparent that you are trying to find fault in Willard, and find merit in whatever Vitally does.

 

Spot on.

 

By that logic, why would you care about any aspect of human history?

 

You are being a bit silly here.

Even if we assume that Willard's surviving record is complete (some evidence suggests otherwise), he had about 30 professional fights by the time he met Johnson.

I think that by the time you have had 30 professional fights, and beaten a few name fighters, you have graduated from being a farm hand.

 

Fair enough, maybe a bit hyperbolic, but the point is that Willard's actual skills were no great shakes. The combination of size and heart made him a formidable opponent for most boxers - even a great like Johnson winding up his career - but Vitali was no ordinary champion and the only two fights he lost he was ahead on the cards before they were stopped due to injury. You simply can't say the same for Willard and even the fights that we have seen him winning in, he doesn't exactly impress. My point is that these two are levels apart.