WLAD Vs JESS WILLARD, Who Wins, 15 Round Super HW, Fight

[them_apples]

and the left hook to the body is not aimed downward. It is hooked from the side, and travels directly in the path of the turning hip.

7:15. the punch definitely does not travel downward in any way, and you can see that his lead leg is glued to the ground and pulls forward and upward to deliver the shot.

the fist starts at the same height that it ends up. Which is the optimal for power.

ok then a right cross to the sternum. VERY hard shot. explain that one. I remember Erik morales owning some fool with that punch.

but I think we are talking about 2 different things. a left to the body is the equivalent to a left to the head on a shorter opponent in some sense, which to me is punching below you.

EDIT: thanks for that sweet vid though

[Steak]

ok then a right cross to the sternum. VERY hard shot. explain that one. I remember Erik morales owning some fool with that punch.

but I think we are talking about 2 different things. a left to the body is the equivalent to a left to the head on a shorter opponent in some sense, which to me is punching below you.

EDIT: thanks for that sweet vid though

youre probably thinking of Morales knocking out Zaragoza. and you can generate some power punching downward, but it definitely isnt the most power you could produce. Not to mention the sternum is a very sensitive area that instantly takes the wind out of you.

Im talking specifically about a punch traveling downward. If the punch starts at the same height that it ends up, it isnt being thrown downward. If you throw a left hook when your fist is substantially higher up than the target, its not going to have as much power as a punch that travels along the path of the turning hip.

[them_apples]

youre probably thinking of Morales knocking out Zaragoza. and you can generate some power punching downward, but it definitely isnt the most power you could produce. Not to mention the sternum is a very sensitive area that instantly takes the wind out of you.

Im talking specifically about a punch traveling downward. If the punch starts at the same height that it ends up, it isnt being thrown downward. If you throw a left hook when your fist is substantially higher up than the target, its not going to have as much power as a punch that travels along the path of the turning hip.

thats true but it's not what the argument was about. When people stated "punching downward" they meant a shorter opponent. I think it was because someone said David Haye didn't get knocked out because Wlad was punching downward. Taking into account, that means left hooks included. Any punch thrown by Wlad at David Haye is considered punching downward. Because he is the taller opponent. that's the main point.

Wlad could get more leverage Hitting Haye than Haye had hitting Wlad. In fact any punch closer to your hips alignment is going to be harder, because it doesn't have to transfer as much energy through your core.

Even wonder why Pacquiaos straight left was so deadly in the lower weights? It's because he threw it from his waist after blinding his opponent with a jab. He's changed his style now and sharp shoots with it /throws it like a normal cross, but whens the last time he decked someone with a straight left??

[Steak]

thats true but it's not what the argument was about. When people stated "punching downward" they meant a shorter opponent. I think it was because someone said David Haye didn't get knocked out because Wlad was punching downward. Taking into account, that means left hooks included. Any punch thrown by Wlad at David Haye is considered punching downward. Because he is the taller opponent. that's the main point.

Wlad could get more leverage Hitting Haye than Haye had hitting Wlad. In fact any punch closer to your hips alignment is going to be harder, because it doesn't have to transfer as much energy through your core.

Even wonder why Pacquiaos straight left was so deadly in the lower weights? It's because he threw it from his waist after blinding his opponent with a jab. He's changed his style now and sharp shoots with it /throws it like a normal cross, but whens the last time he decked someone with a straight left??

you dont automatically punch downward just because youre the taller boxer, as evidence by the multiple videos I put up, Hearns in particular. But Wladimir does fight tall and upright, and rarely risks giving up his height to actually line up shots, especially against an offensive threat such as Haye.

Maybe its just a definition were arguing on, but personally I thought it was self explanatory that a "downward punch" meant the punch was actually going down...as in having a downward slope I guess you could say.

and thats the point, isnt it? If youre standing upright and have to punch down, you cant get your hip truly behind the punch. You have to bend down a little to get that ideal alignment of the fist, shoulder, legs and hips. You cant do that completely when your punch is actually traveling down, it needs to be level.

[New England]

Bro Fact is Willard was seen by witnesses doing it...Trust me I don't know the family backgrounds or honesty of the guys but I have zero proof to say it was false too.

Willard was extremely strong. His only problem was he never liked fighting. He was recommended to boxing after someone saw him tossing bales of cotton easily...he never learnt to box...A single uppercut of him killed a man...I know many weaker men have killed men too, but few did it like Willard who learnt to box pretty late.

He broke horses and ran a frontier freight-wagon service, J. D. Brock picked him simply for his size and strength...He was a man who was brought up in a way that would enhance his strength from the beginning.

Sorry I can't see Wlad being stronger than Willard...And its not because Wlad is from 2000 and Willard from 1919...I am not senile.


As for as this fighting little guys , let me tell you one thing Harry Willis , Jack Dempsey, Firpo were not small men...Jack Johnson would have weighed over 230 (he weighed 225 pounds against Willard )with todays modern nutrition not far from most heavies I may add...I tell you one thing wake up...

I can name a score of fighters who you might not have heard of who Wlad would definitely beat in strength...Not Willard...I am not arguing Fred Fulton would out muscle Wlad..and yea Fulton was no small man. Heard of Carl Morris ? He weighed 234 pounds against Willard...Wasn't a small man by any stretch..the very statement " he beat small men", almost put me off and I thought off not posting a reply...Listen sir, go to a doc and say that human evolution has happened over 100 years...this is only thought by boxers like us...Most professionals will laugh at you.

There were big men before 1990 you know...But generally they were hammered.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a man from 1919 can indeed be stronger than a man from 2000 of comparable height and structure...My brother a surgeon has assured me repeatedly that nothing increases functional strength like hard manual labour.


And ,What proof you have that Willard did not lift 500 pounds...Zero, just "life altering weigh" and stuff like that....Why should I believe your doubts and not other guys assertion who lived at that time? Sorry I will take their words over some Internet posters doubts in 2011.

In CBZ i read a article which stated Curtis Shpehard benched around 200 pounds when he was around 60...What makes you think a young much bigger naturally strong guy would not do it...

Just one last thing...Willard did weigh over 240...he weighed 259 pounds once...get your facts straight, and that was without the help of modern nutrition,without lifting weights etc...

i'm not doubting that willard was large or strong.

at his best he weighed 240ish. i've obviously seen his boxrec, dude. it's a few clicks away. get my facts straight, lol. lighten up.
you aren't telling me anything when you tell me that he weighed 259 lbs in one fight, brother



moving on, for the purposes of my argument, none of that matters. when he was in shape he was in the 240's, which i outlined in my first post.
he and wladimir are amost identical in size. and my opinion, to which i'm as entitled as you are to yours, is that wladimir would be at least as strong as he was.



the discussion of the time period was to outline the FACT (and not opinion) that willards freakish strength (and i'm not arguing agains the fact that he was very strong) in a historic context means a lot less today when he's going to be fighting guys his size, or closer to his size

the fighters that he did fight were on the whole shorter and lighter than hw of later era. that is all

would he still be a strong guy today?
sure. like a bull. probably a heck of a lot stronger than a lot of the guys he would be fighting. look at him. i never called the guy a petunia.


but so is wladimir klitschko, very strong i mean

he's 242ish when he's ripped
just shredded up. like a weight class boxer, or a 15 round HW.
he might even take drugs to get like that.

if he wasn't a vegetarian when he wasn't training and a strict disciplinarian he would easily blow up to 260-270 between fights. he and willard are essentially the same size.


hw today suck, but they are larger than in the past, and have been getting larger consistently since willards day. that's fact and not opinion, brother
there were strong men and large men back then, certainly. and very great fighters, too, that would trash modern HW
but on the whole people were much smaller in 1919. i don't care who you think will laugh at me, to be completely honest, and i don't mean to be an ******* when i say that. they can laugh all they want, it's not going to bother me or make me change my stance on the matter.


and for the bold part
throwing a 500 lb bale of cotton, if it was in vogue back in 1919, didn't last.
that's not good for your back. mine hurts just thinking about it.
willard is the only guy i've heard to try it out
are you talking about his work history in farming or training? can they even fit a 500 lb bale of cotton in the gym ^^ ?


i'm saying there's no way in gods green earth he made a habit out of "tossing" 500 lb bales of cotton as part of his training, and i'm sticking with that

maybe he could "toss" it. i think it would depend a good deal on what you mean by "tossing"
but its not something that you'd be doing on the regular

that would wear you down, especially as you aged.



and if you want to rip on new england for bias toward a time period (and i do not mind, fire away. i generally enjoy your posts, and this site is no fun when everybody agrees with eachother) you should pick somethinging other than post 1990, homeboy, if that's what you're trying to do

[New England]

you are one minded and theres no point in continuing this debate with you. You continually ignore video evidence and body mechanics completely.

If youre punching downward, youre only mostly getting your upper bodies weight in it, since the point of impact in the punch will be above your hips. In other words, your lower bodies' weight is not fully behind the punch if you are punching downward.

And you obviously just dont understand what punching through the target is. Surely youve heard the phrase before? by any number of boxing trainers or boxers themselves? It means that you are able to stabilize yourself on the ground AFTER the moment of impact, and continue to carry the punch through the target.

You can NOT do that if youre not pushing off the ground, and the opposite force that travels through your body after the punch lands(equal to the initial power of the punch) will actually push your fist back if there isnt a large resistance forcing it to stay there. Hence why so many power punchers have poweful backs. and if youre not pushing off the ground at the moment of impact, that backlash will lose you power.

If you want to make believe youre right, knock yourself out. but youre not. If you dont punch behind your shoulder, you lose power. plain and simple.

incidently, dont try to be technical with the extension thing when I clearly already brought it up in my post.

This either tells me
1. Youre not actually reading my posts or thinking about them because youre already self convinced in your incorrect belief or
2. You are trying to appear educated on body mechanics and the workings of human muscles and reused what I already said in an attempt to appear on even terms with me.
Neither situations induce me to continue having this debate with you, since it seems that you will just go in circles over and over and repeating the same thing without actually addressing any of my points, and trying to pretend that throwing a baseball is in any way similiar to throwing a punch.

and one more thing. None of the videos I posted(though I doubt you bothered to watch them to see my point) were of 'my favorite boxers'. Those were all hard punchers that usually had height advantages in fights, and ALL of them preferred to line their punches up behind their shoulders even on shorter opponents, about or below the level of their opponent's head. I thought you would catch on to that by now.
If you want to question punching technique on p4p ATG punchers just to reassure your self belief, have fun. None of them punched downward to generate power. They lined their shoulders up to their opponents head level. But you will probably ignore this, again, and instead try to question my boxing knowledge. excellent.

lol fair enough man


i bolded my favorite part. <3

i really think you're missing the point of the argument (that taller fighters have an advantage in terms of the height of the target they present and their opponents ability to generate power on it)

i e "its easier to punch down than it is to punch up"

if you don't agree with that then we will have to agree to disagree
i'll only add that you'll find more people who support that notion than go against it

take care,
i'm not trying to offend anybody

[Scott9945]

Tony Thompson mate? Thats quite ridiculous and and bodgy as an opinion.

Thompson can fight a bit and Willard ******. Phrases like "quite ridiculous" don't constitute a valid counterpoint.

And I have no idea what bodgy means.

[New England]

I don't believe Willard ******. But Americans like you prefer flash over hard work and substance. Like the Mayweathers bertos and old Roy Jones who you still talk about.

lol

the rest of the world hates us!



floyd mayweather is the hardest working fighter in boxing.


and roy jones was likewise, an unbelievable worker

[Scott9945]

I don't believe Willard ******. But Americans like you prefer flash over hard work and substance. Like the Mayweathers bertos and old Roy Jones who you still talk about.

I'm not a fan of his, but so far there hasn't been anyone whose "hard work and substance" worked against Floyd Mayweather.

And Tony Thompson is hardly what most would call a great example of a flashy fighter.

[Scott9945]

Yes it's unfortunate that Carmen Basilio and Mickey Walker are no longer around. They would crush Mayweather like an insect. Hell I would pick Colin Jones over Mayweather. Do you remember him or are you too young? Today he would be champion and would have no problems beating Mayweather.

I remember Colin Jones, and he wouldn't win a round against Floyd. Or Pacquiao.

Lets just cut to the chase and admit that you only like white fighters...