Vitali Klitschko vs Jess Willard 15 rounds

Or,to put it rather more bluntly.
If you don't care about the old timers WTF are you on the classic section?

 

Janitor, with all due respect it's an eyes test and one doesn't need to be the familiar with boxing to see the differences

Vitali footwork, punch anticipation, countering, reflexes, and technical skill tower above Willard's.

Jess is one of the worst defensive champions I've ever seen. This fantasy fight is a mismatch, that would stand out about a minute after the first bell rang. Sometimes Vitali did use an uppercut by the way.

You're better off saying Vitali had 275+ combat matches ( amateur and pro boxing and kickboxing ) , and better coaching compared to Willard who was a big farm boy with far fewer fights and coaching. Then you'll be making some points, but in the end, Willard was always a little clumsy, and not in the same class an athlete. I don't think Willard really liked boxing either. He was an in-active champion. Vitali liked his craft.

 

I don't think that anybody is disputing that Vitally had a lot more ring experience than Willard, when they were in their respective primes.

Of course having said that, you would probably have to make some allowance for Willard's early losses, and allow that he had a very short prime.

 

Some people study WWII, but those people don’t think the militaries from the 30s and 40s could defeat the militaries of today. Willard could compete in his time against people like Moran, but to watch those two on video is like watching a Rough and Rowdy Brawl today.

 

on this similarity thing,

I think it is sort of like saying a black bear is similar to a jaguar. Well, in weight and physical characteristics the two mammals are more like each other than either is like an octopus, a fish, or a bird. So one can point to a lot of similarities. But others can point out that a lumbering bear isn't much like a lithe cat, and they are correct also.

I see this discussion something like this. They are two big men who carry their hands low. But in this film Willard shows very little movement. Vitali shows constant movement. Willard does not do that much effective punching. In fact, just off the brief film clip shown, I think it would be fair to judge Moran getting the best of what we see. (the vast majority had Willard winning this ND fight, but John L. Sullivan and Abe Attell did vote for Moran) Vitali utterly dominates Peter. It doesn't seem he can miss. Vitali shows a great deal of lateral movement. Willard seems to only move directly forward or back. Willard does roll with punches. Frankly, I don't remember Vitali actually being hit in the head with an effective punch or even a punch coming close enough that he has to actually roll with it or slip it.

I didn't think the film is clear enough to really judge to what extent those right hands of Moran were scoring.

But these films I think display why there is a vast gap in how these modern super-heavyweights are judged by different observers. It boils down to there are two different species of modern super-heavyweights. One is the really big in every way guys like Lewis, the Klitschkos, Joshua, and Fury. These men are 6' 5" to 6' 9" with corresponding long reaches. The second are guys who aren't overall that big, but are just extremely heavy, like Peter in this fight. Off listed height, Peter isn't as tall as Dempsey, Schmeling, or Conn. His reach doesn't seem any longer. He just weighs 60 to 80 lbs. more.

Perhaps this improves his punch resistance. Perhaps it improves his punching power. Perhaps. But there is no doubt it comes at a terrific price. He has almost no mobility or flexibility. Fighting from a crouch seems out of the question. He is just too heavy and thick about the waist. Head or torso movement is minimal. He is a flat-footed plodder. And stamina? Even a slow pace exhausts him.

The shorter and smaller man in the older film, Moran, was hardly an outstanding contender. He lost to Johnson. He lost to Fulton. He lost to Jack Dillon. He also lost to McCarty, and three times to Gunboat Smith. His best wins were over second-tier guys like Palzer, Wells, and Coffey. But he looks a lot better to me than Peter. He can move around. He is fast enough to close the gap quickly with his big opponent. And once inside he has enough energy to throw punches.

What do I draw from what I see? Well, I think if you are the much shorter man, it is foolish to build up your weight to try to match the big fellow in his strengths. I think the better strategy would be to carry a lot less weight, hopefully the optimal weight for your height, and rely on the natural strengths of a small man--quickness, mobility, flexibility, and stamina. I think old-timers like Tunney, Loughran, and Conn, despite being so much lighter, probably would have beaten Peter more often than not with superior movement.

But Tunney, Loughran, and Conn would have no realistic shot at handling a true giant like Vitali, in my judgment.

I certainly think Vitali would handle Moran, but I also think Moran might have given him a better go and even landed a few punches.

 

We haven't actually became a race of superhumans in the last few decades.

Even most of the improvement of athletic performance have been from better equipment (such as starting blocks, harder tracks, lighter bicycles), and in sports where there has been a large increase in competition depth, which also hasn't really happened in boxing

 

Actually they probably could based on numbers!

 

1 modern day Nimitz class carrier with full flotilla complement could probably win WW2 on its own!

 

I would expect Vitali to beat both Willard and Moran.

 

As would I.

 

It'd run out of ammunition before it could sink everything

 

An interesting question, but probably not one for us to debate.

 

So do I. I was explicit about Moran in the post. I only said Moran might do better than Peter who basically did nothing because Moran could at least move about some.

 

Sad. I just spent ten pleasant minutes wondering how modern militaries (at their current sizes)would deal with WW2 militaries at maximum mobilization. The air power would probably be the tipping factor for the modern militaries, but, even so, in city combat I think the WW2 guys would give the modern militaries all they could handle and maybe even whip them.

 

If you are saying that I am comparing Willard to Vitally, because I can't find anybody better to compare either of them to, then I am not going to contradict you.

The similarities go beyond them being big men who hold their hands low, they both control the range against smaller opponents in very much the same way, and use their reach to stay out of harms way in much the same way.

By all means call Willard a poor mans Vitally if it makes you more comfortable with the comparison, but Vitally is clearly a lot more like Willard, than he is like say Wlad or Bowe or Lewis.

That truth will be a bitter medicine to swallow for some.

As you say, the vast majority of the ringside reporters had it for Willard, despite the fact that the scoring of the era favored Moran's style.

Interestingly the real winner out of your analysis seems to be Moran.

We seem to be broadly in agreement here.