Why do old fighters get judged so harshly?

Great stuff mate.

 

Fair enough. As John Thomas said, I'm not one who intends to rile. I was merely pointing out that I don't think a short gif reveals enough to be worthwhile evidence to support your claims.

For example, the clip of Willard showed him throwing two punches reveals no more than that. He takes two punches, he gives two back. We don't know what round it is or anything. But you use it to support your basis that Jess would always fight back.

It's hard to agree with that with a couple of seconds worth of footage. Had you shown a more prolonged beating and then Jess throwing punches back, it's a basis for your stance and, in light of the horrible beating he took, would have been pretty incontrovertible evidence.

I wasn't picking an argument. I was trying to have good-natured debate and was challenging you to show how your clip supported your point. Relax a bit. It's a debating forum and, as you start so many threads, you are going to be challenged a lot more than other posters. If you take every challenge as an affront and think people have got a bone to pick with you, you're in for some long nights. Anyway, peace out.

 

Absolutely Rez. This clip was from round three I believe. After such a horrific battering Jess was still game and fighting back. Indeed Jess hurt Dempsey as per press reports during round three. Perhaps your short clip actually is catching the right hand that did so???? If so Bravo once again!

 

Jeez, JT. Let's get a room.

Thanks for that and thanks for pointing out I don't set out to annoy. Tease? Certainly. A forum where people only present opinions ad nauseum becomes a mass debate and none of us want that, do we?

But I, like you I believe, cannot bear overly aggressive posters who hide behind their anonymity to insult and belittle you and your family if you happen to believe that George Foreman couldn't punch a hole in the moon. We both know who I mean. That bit of oil you poured on troubled waters helps stop the board from descending into a forum of petty squabbles and insults and that can distract from and even ruin the most interesting of threads.

 

For sure Ed. Rez is a genuine boxing lover and fights the good fight for the old timers with Jan and i respect that even if i do or don't always agree. We cover most spectrums in here. Rez can get a bit hot under the collar and i fully respect that too, particularly when aimed well hahaha. In this case a bit of mistaken identity i think.

 

Tirade! Chr*st you do have a thin skin don't you?

Your points are correct except for the underlined.Frank Moran went 20 rds with Johnson in1914 and ,though he said he had it all to do lasting out he managed it.Marvin Hart took a controversial decision over 20rds from Johnson in1905.

 

Johnson said he was the greatest .

 

The point Fleischer made (not me) was that Willard was the first white hope that could fight OVER 20 rounds without exhausting himself. Indeed Willards conditioning was marvelous as he not only fought over 20 rounds he became aggressive and stronger as the fight progressed past round 20.

 

I for one dont think old time fighters suck.
Boxing did evolve in certain ways but ill still take fighters from the 60's 70's and early 80's over the fighters today.

 

Willard was fit to fight the world the day he fought Johnson. Willard was the first of the white hopes that could fight over 20 rounds.

You've added the underlined to the above, had you worded it in that way originally I would not have replied.