Jess Willard not as bad as many seem to think

[sonnyboyx2]

Often i have defended Jess Willard on this site after he has been described by some as a "Joke, the worst in History" Etc etc.. Jess Willard was nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed and what is surprising to me is the amount of Boxing fans who paid to see this guy fight, 75,000, 60,000 or more on a regular basis.. Here is an excellent link:

http://boxingbiographies.com/bio/ind...d=30&Itemid=30

[Greatest1942]

Often i have defended Jess Willard on this site after he has been described by some as a "Joke, the worst in History" Etc etc.. Jess Willard was nowhere near as bad as he is portrayed and what is surprising to me is the amount of Boxing fans who paid to see this guy fight, 75,000, 60,000 or more on a regular basis.. Here is an excellent link:

http://boxingbiographies.com/bio/ind...d=30&Itemid=30

Willard was also probably one of the strongest (note not punching power, just functional strength). He was observed to be casually lifting 500 pounds of cotton...He also killed one man with a uppercut...And trust me he had a great chin one of the best with the pasting that Demps gave him it would seriously take some endurance to get up...Plus Jack Johnson beat him bad till he got tired...He just soaked it in and kept coming. Not that gifted not the best not the worst too.

[Sugarj]

Sadly Willard seems to be one of those guys (Like Jeffries, Burns and Carnera) who are remembered more for their losses than their wins.

He did do well against Johnson in 1915. Johnson hit him with some very classy combinations that night early on. The right hand punch that knocked Johnson down looked pretty good too, I'd never rule out a dive on the part of Johnson though. Jack was a controversial guy, who at the very least had a terrific chin. Who knows?

As for Dempsey, Willard surely was not prepared for such an early onslaught at such a frantic pace. Most fights back then (and now for that matter!!!) weren't paced anything like that early on! Dempsey was a whirlwind that night!

[StarshipTrooper]

Yeah, for worst you seriously need to look at the post 1970 "beltholders".....guys like Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Hasim Rahman, and Bruce Seldon were all jokes who somehow managed to secure a slice of the Heavyweight title. Guys in that vein deserve the "Worst In History"

Poet

[Scott9945]

Sadly Willard seems to be one of those guys (Like Jeffries, Burns and Carnera) who are remembered more for their losses than their wins.

He did do well against Johnson in 1915. Johnson hit him with some very classy combinations that night early on. The right hand punch that knocked Johnson down looked pretty good too, I'd never rule out a dive on the part of Johnson though. Jack was a controversial guy, who at the very least had a terrific chin. Who knows?

As for Dempsey, Willard surely was not prepared for such an early onslaught at such a frantic pace. Most fights back then (and now for that matter!!!) weren't paced anything like that early on! Dempsey was a whirlwind that night!

It's hard to ignore that Willard's career record was just 23-5 with few impressive wins outside of a weary Jack Johnson.

And Willard had no excuse for not expecting Dempsey's attack, since Jack came into the fight with SIX straight one round KO's. It would be kinda like Margarito saying after their fight that he had no idea that Pacquiao had such fast hands.

[Boogie Nights]

It's hard to ignore that Willard's career record was just 23-5 with few impressive wins outside of a weary Jack Johnson.

And Willard had no excuse for not expecting Dempsey's attack, since Jack came into the fight with SIX straight one round KO's. It would be kinda like Margarito saying after their fight that he had no idea that Pacquiao had such fast hands.

this, it's sad that some people just cant let go and are agitated that someone has an opinion that goes against their thinking. Posters like OP will defend past fighters like they are their offspring ffs.

Maybe i should go and start a thread about how Valuev is not as bad as everyone thinks.

What's next on the list? Let's defend every single fighter that was beaten by anyone in the top 10 ATG heavyweight list. Because everyone knows they are Gods, and no one other form of life in any era, especially current, would have a remote chance to even make it through a staredown.

[StarshipTrooper]

this, it's sad that some people just cant let go and are agitated that someone has an opinion that goes against their thinking. Posters like OP will defend past fighters like they are their offspring ffs.

Maybe i should go and start a thread about how Valuev is not as bad as everyone thinks.

What's next on the list? Let's defend every single fighter that was beaten by anyone in the top 10 ATG heavyweight list. Because everyone knows they are Gods, and no one other form of life in any era, especially current, would have a remote chance to even make it through a staredown.

You're just as biased as you accuse the thread starter of being only you're biased in favor of CURRENT fighters. Pot, kettle, black.

What's next on the list? Let's defend every ever single fighter beaten by anyone on the current top 10 Heavyweight list. Because God only knows current fighters are Gods and those "old dudes" ****** and no past fighter, even from just 10 years ago, could make it past the staredown with a current top 10.

Seriously dude.....before you start screaming about bias you need to take a look at your own :loser9:

Poet

[Boogie Nights]

Have I reminded you lately you're an idiot? You're just as biased as you accuse the thread starter of being only you're biased in favor of CURRENT fighters. Pot, kettle, black.

What's next on the list? Let's defend every ever single fighter beaten by anyone on the current top 10 Heavyweight list. Because God only knows current fighters are Gods and those "old dudes" ****** and no past fighter, even from just 10 years ago, could make it past the staredown with a current top 10.

Seriously dude.....before you start screaming about bias you need to take a look at your own :loser9:

Poet

i dont even know what you're talking about, show proof of my biase or shut up

you're worked yourself up in good position, you are good friends with a mod, so i can see how your constant flaming of members you dont agree with is accepted and forgiven.

May i remind you that im on your ignore, why do people put others on ignore?

To not read their posts or respond to them

[JAB5239]

i dont even know what you're talking about, show proof of my bias
you're worked yourself up in good position, you are good friends with a mod, so i can see how your constant flaming of members you dont agree with is accepted and forgiven.

May i remind you that im on your ignore, why do people put others on ignore?

To not read their posts or respond to them

Being friends with me hasn't prevented me from having to edit or delete certain posts of Poets, including the one you responded to. All are welcome with their opinions, but trolling will be prevented at all costs no matter who the poster is.

[StarshipTrooper]

i dont even know what you're talking about, show proof of my biase or shut up

you're worked yourself up in good position, you are good friends with a mod, so i can see how your constant flaming of members you dont agree with is accepted and forgiven.

May i remind you that im on your ignore, why do people put others on ignore?

To not read their posts or respond to them

Wrong! I put you on ignore so you can't pollute the odd thread I may start. Pure and simple. As for my flaming, I'm simply responding to your hypocrisy. Your contempt for old-timers is all over your original post in this thread! And my being friends with a mod? That mod in question has already deleted some of my racier posts.

Poet