Jersey Joe Walcott : how good was he? [Archive]

DINAMITA

12-09-2008, 12:52 PM

1 - Why would he be in a top 10 at HW? A disputed loss to Louis...he posed a real test for Marciano...he beat Charles twice. No way does he get anyhwere near the top 10. Lower end of a top 20, he should always be in the 25.

2 - He's below Marshall and Bivins p4p for me, though yes, he was was a better Heavy than Bivins, Charles and Moore.

3 - No way. 8 classic weight divisions pluss various additions through the years - that's a shit load of elite fighters. Now consider that HW produces consistently the worst boxers of all the classic weight divisions.

I'm not suggesting he should be in a top 10. I just like posting threads about fighters who seem to split opinion then reading the opposing viewpoints, I find it very interesting. I think Jersey Joe is one of those guys. I'm sure there is the odd fan on here who thinks Jersey Joe is worthy of parity with guys like Holyfield and Dempsey as a hw.

janitor

12-09-2008, 12:58 PM

I'm not suggesting he should be in a top 10. I just like posting threads about fighters who seem to split opinion then reading the opposing viewpoints, I find it very interesting. I think Jersey Joe is one of those guys. I'm sure there is the odd fan on here who thinks Jersey Joe is worthy of parity with guys like Holyfield and Dempsey as a hw.

As his record stands Jersey Joe is a top 20 all time heavyweight perhaps top 15.

Where he is interesting is that perhaps he might have had the potential to be a top 10 all time heavyweight if he had the right oportunities early in his career. Like many early black heavyweights he did not have a good manager or financial backing to operate a training camp. He had to take fights on short notice while working a 9-5 job.

Jersey Joe eventualy got his lucky break due to the second world war. With many young men fighting overseas promotors could no longer be picky about the race of the fighters they backed. This resulted in black heavyweights like Walcott and Elmer Ray getting a chance at the 11th hour of their potential primes.

Although Walcott lost against his two biggest oponents (Louis and Marciano) he gave them both verry tough fights. What often gets overlooked is that he prety much cleaned out the heavyweight division to get a shot at Louis's crown. It should also be noted that Walcott was the oldest fighter to win the heavyweight title before a certain mr Foreman in the 90s.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:05 PM

Where he is interesting is that perhaps he might have had the potential to be a top 10 all time heavyweight if he had the right oportunities early in his career.

Well he was bossed a little bit my the top guys he met up with earlier on. Abe Simon beating him is something that is nearly inexplicable when you watch them both fight...I really think that Walcott continued to improve and improve as he fought, a great advertisement for experience. Audley Harrison but in reverse.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:08 PM

As his record stands Jersey Joe is a top 20 all time heavyweight perhaps top 15.

Who would you rank him above out of my 11-15?

Wills
Foreman
Desmpey
Hollyfield
Jackson

And my 16-19?

Corbett
Schmeling
Bowe

janitor

12-09-2008, 01:17 PM

Who would you rank him above out of my 11-15?

Wills
Foreman
Desmpey
Hollyfield
Jackson

And my 16-19?

Corbett
Schmeling
Bowe

Your top 11-15 probably have it by a hair but I have him above all your 16-19.

janitor

12-09-2008, 01:21 PM

Well he was bossed a little bit my the top guys he met up with earlier on. Abe Simon beating him is something that is nearly inexplicable when you watch them both fight...I really think that Walcott continued to improve and improve as he fought, a great advertisement for experience. Audley Harrison but in reverse.

Walcott took the Simon fight on two days notice while working a full time job and not training. There are also some reports that suggest he was ill.

He gave Simon a boxing lesson untill he ran out of gas then was knocked out as much due to exaustion as anything else. You simply cant box at world level without the necesary backing and training regime.

If you gave Walcott a manager, a training camp and adequate time to prepare I honestly dont think Simon would give him a competitive fight.

DINAMITA

12-09-2008, 01:22 PM

Who would you rank him above out of my 11-15?

Wills
Foreman
Desmpey
Hollyfield
Jackson

And my 16-19?

Corbett
Schmeling
Bowe

Personally I can't see the argument for having him below Bowe, not at all.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:26 PM

Your top 11-15 probably have it by a hair but I have him above all your 16-19.

I think he is in the mix with those boys, but above Schmeling? Really? Schmeling is the pround possessor of the second best win in HW history. His version of Louis is better than the version Walcott extended but couldn't quite beat...Schmeling beat some good fighters, and although I accept that his resume probably isn't as good as Jersey Joe's without the Louis win, that win lifts him, surely?

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:27 PM

Walcott took the Simon fight on two days notice while working a full time job and not training. There are also some reports that suggest he was ill.

Well that would certainly help to explain it.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:28 PM

Personally I can't see the argument for having him below Bowe, not at all.

Well if you put an stock in who was better peak for peak and if you are interested in their very best wins, Bowe is certainly off to a good start.

Rebel-INS

12-09-2008, 01:49 PM

I think he is in the mix with those boys, but above Schmeling? Really? Schmeling is the pround possessor of the second best win in HW history. His version of Louis is better than the version Walcott extended but couldn't quite beat...Schmeling beat some good fighters, and although I accept that his resume probably isn't as good as Jersey Joe's without the Louis win, that win lifts him, surely?

What do you think about the first Walcott-Louis fight? A lot of people thought that was a robbery. If Walcott had got the decision, would you rate him higher?

SuzieQ49

12-09-2008, 01:50 PM

walcott beat the hell out of abe simon....his "horrible conditioning"(he shouldnt have been allowed a boxing liscense) made him exhaust himself out...it had nothing to do with simons talent.

SuzieQ49

12-09-2008, 01:51 PM

walcott-Louis I was a robbery, johngarfield was at ringside for the fight LIVE in 1947 december and he said it was CLEAR CUT that walcott won.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 01:56 PM

I only have extended highlights, but I certainly see it closer than JG.

But who knows how those missing sections might affect that appraisal?

Anyway or not, Walcott doesn't hold a win over the faded Louis. Those are the facts, and around 1/3 of the ringside reporters agreed with it.

DINAMITA

12-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Well if you put an stock in who was better peak for peak and if you are interested in their very best wins, Bowe is certainly off to a good start.

Bowe was an excellent heavyweight in terms of ability, there's no disputing that, but other than the two wins over Holyfield (achieved with a huge size advantage, and he also suffered a loss to Evander), what else is there to Bowe's career? Weak resume - not decent or mediocre, but weak IMO. It's one of those ones where the gap between them is not immense, but I can't see the case for it being Bowe above Walcott and not the other way around.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 02:28 PM

I can't see the case for it being Bowe above Walcott and not the other way around.

I can't do any better than to explain it to you again -

1 - Bowe was better

2 - Bowe has the best wins.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 02:29 PM

I rate him as the 12th greatest heavyweight.

I would put Marshall and Bivins higher p4p. He beat better fighters then Moore and Charles did at heavy although head to head at their best I would favour Charles.

I have not done a top 100 so I can't really answer this.

mr. magoo

12-09-2008, 02:30 PM

Walcott was a journeyman

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 02:31 PM

I can't do any better than to explain it to you again -

1 - Bowe was better

2 - Bowe has the best wins.

Bowe has one quality win over a guy he outweighed by like 25lbs while Walcott stopped Charles and beat possibly the greatest heavy in Louis. Plus Walcott cleaned up the division before he won the title his resume is a far amount better then Bowe's.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 02:32 PM

Walcott was a journeyman

:patsch

McGrain

12-09-2008, 02:33 PM

Bowe has one quality win over a guy he outweighed by like 25lbs while Walcott stopped Charles and beat possibly the greatest heavy in Louis. Plus Walcott cleaned up the division before he won the title his resume is a far amount better then Bowe's.

All of this is true, aside from the fact that Bowe has two wins over Hollyfield.

And regardless of the truth of this matter, it's still true that Bowe has the better win, Bowe is better.

Do you have Walcott ahead of Wills?

mr. magoo

12-09-2008, 02:37 PM

:patsch

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

DINAMITA

12-09-2008, 02:39 PM

All of this is true, aside from the fact that Bowe has two wins over Hollyfield.

And regardless of the truth of this matter, it's still true that Bowe has the better win, Bowe is better.

Do you have Walcott ahead of Wills?

So Bowe is better because you believe he has a superior skillset and he has the better win singular??

All due respect McGrain, but that is a very flimsy basis for having Bowe above Walcott. Looking at their entire bodies of work, I say it has to be Walcott.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 02:44 PM

All of this is true, aside from the fact that Bowe has two wins over Hollyfield.

And regardless of the truth of this matter, it's still true that Bowe has the better win, Bowe is better.

Do you have Walcott ahead of Wills?

Bowe possibly has a better win then Walcott best sure but what does he have besides that? Little to nothing. And Holyfield had hepatitis in the third fight its a testament to Evander's heart and skill he was able to go 8 rounds and knock Bowe down while suffering that.

If your so convinced Bowe has better wins list them becuase I feel he only has one quality win.

I have Wills at 13 although him and Walcott are inter changeable.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 02:45 PM

So Bowe is better because you believe he has a superior skillset and he has the better win singular??.

He passed the boxing test at the highest level by dominating a trilogy with top 15 lock Evander Hollyfield.

He is a better fighter - breaking that down we see that he was bigger, with more power, a better chin.

He lost 1/42, at the very highest level. Walcott lost 18/71, which IS a factor.

Bowe has other good wins - Golota x2, Donald, Hide, Dokes, Cooper.

There's plenty there.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 02:46 PM

I have Wills at 13 although him and Walcott are inter changeable.

See the above post for further reasoning.

I have Wills around ten places higher than Walcott.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 02:59 PM

He passed the boxing test at the highest level by dominating a trilogy with top 15 lock Evander Hollyfield.

He is a better fighter - breaking that down we see that he was bigger, with more power, a better chin.

He lost 1/42, at the very highest level. Walcott lost 18/71, which IS a factor.

Bowe has other good wins - Golota x2, Donald, Hide, Dokes, Cooper.

There's plenty there.

One of the reasons he is better is because he is bigger and beat smaller men? Tua has a better chin and more power then 95% of heavy yet he is nowhere near top 20. If you judge like that Walcott had the better defence, longevity, footwork, jab and was more accurate.

Look who Bowe fought 42-1 isn't as great as it sounds he only fought one quality fighter. Walcott was a part time fighter in his early career so he was bound to pick up some losses Bowe win loss record is better then Frazier too does that make him better?

Golota beat his ass twice and then got himself dq for no apparent reason. Dokes was recently stopped in four to Razor and no offence to Copper but who didn't beat him the guy was a journeyman with a punch a lesser Satterfield. Hide are kidding me he has one of the worst chins I've seen no to mention he had Bowe all over the place with his power and lets not forget a prime Bowe getting out boxed by Tubbs. Yeh he defiantly has a great resume.

Walcott was better, you made me realise how poor Bowe resume really is he isn't even in my top 20.

Chinxkid

12-09-2008, 03:00 PM

I love Walcott's style, a moving target and a thinking fighter. And by the way I think he beats Bowe, not a thinking, imaginative fighter, Walcott would have made his head spin.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 03:08 PM

Walcott wins:
Charles x2
Joe Louis
Harold Johnson
Joe Maxim x2
Curtis Sheppard (on par with Cooper)
Jimmy Bivins
Elmar Ray x2
Lee Q Murray
Tommy Gomez
Lee Oma

mr. magoo

12-09-2008, 03:11 PM

When I think of Joe Walcott, the song sentimental journey comes to mind.

Gonna take a Sentimental Journey,
Gonna set my heart at ease.
Gonna make a Sentimental Journey,
to renew old memories.

Got my bags, got my reservations,
Spent each dime I could afford.
Like a child in wild anticipation,
I Long to hear that, "All aboard!"

Seven...that's the time we leave at seven.
I'll be waitin' up at heaven,
Countin' every mile of railroad
track, that takes me back.

Never thought my heart could be so yearny.
Why did I decide to roam?
Gotta take that Sentimental Journey,
Sentimental Journey home.
Sentimental Journey.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 03:36 PM

One of the reasons he is better is because he is bigger and beat smaller men?

He didn't beat smaller men than Walcott beat. Both are heavyweights. Size is only ONE issue we encounter in appraising a top HW - but as fighters get bigger, if - IF - we continue to rank old-time HW's as HW's, and compare them to their modern peers, the smaller men are going to drop down the lists. Unless, that is, you are assembling a p4p HW list, that is a different matter.

If you judge like that Walcott had the better defence, longevity, footwork, jab and was more accurate.

But Bowe was better. Bowe was a better fighter, he was better at boxing. People who want to say there is no reason to rank Bowe ahead of Walcott have to start with that right there.

42-1 isn't as great as it sounds

And 51-18 isn't as bad as IT sounds. But we can't ignore the fact that Bowe lost only once to a bona-fide ATG (who he beat twice) any more than we can ignore the fact that Walcott lost 30% of his fights.

he only fought one quality fighter.

That's obviously not true.

Walcott was a part time fighter in his early career

And it's fair to take that into consideration. But the figure is still 30%. And I can't imagine Bowe losing to Maxim, for example.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 03:40 PM

Walcott was better, you made me realise how poor Bowe resume really is he isn't even in my top 20.

Both are hovering around 18-21 in mine. I think that it is fair to rank them in any order, to be fair, I have Schmeling above both.

mr. magoo

12-09-2008, 03:55 PM

Classic fighters are like scotch whiskey. They seem to get better with age.

Rebel-INS

12-09-2008, 03:57 PM

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 03:59 PM

But Bowe was better. Bowe was a better fighter, he was better at boxing. People who want to say there is no reason to rank Bowe ahead of Walcott have to start with that right there.

And 51-18 isn't as bad as IT sounds. But we can't ignore the fact that Bowe lost only once to a bona-fide ATG (who he beat twice) any more than we can ignore the fact that Walcott lost 30% of his fights.

And it's fair to take that into consideration. But the figure is still 30%. And I can't imagine Bowe losing to Maxim, for example.

The Maxim decision was meant to be a bad one. And you keep talking about how many losses Walcott has well he was mismanaged in his early career going up against guys with far more experience many great have many losses Charles lost something like 21% of his fights so what he was still an ATG. I can't image Walcott getting manhandled by Golota.

You keep claiming Bowe was better what head to head? I rate Jones JR better head to head then Tunney at 175lbs but still rank Tunney higher because of his better resume at the weight. Walcott probably forgot more about the sweet science then Bowe learnt. I still don't feel that Bowe was a better fighter he only beat one top 30 heavy while Walcott beat Charles and Louis also Elmar who is top 30. Name me anyone beside Holyfield who Bowe beat who is in the top 30 heavy's?

When it comes to resume Walcott's is a lot better the only person who cleaned up like him before they won the title was Liston.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 04:00 PM

I respect your opinion McGrain, but surely you don't actually believe the two Golota "wins" add anything to Bowe's legacy?

Yeah, I do. Not because of the win, but because there is no loss.

Bowe didn't quit and wasn't sparked - only the singular loss remains.

mr. magoo

12-09-2008, 04:05 PM

Yeah, I do. Not because of the win, but because there is no loss.

Bowe didn't quit and wasn't sparked - only the singular loss remains.

I have to agree here, and often wonder why more people don't see it from that perspective. I clearly remember watching both of Bowe's attrocious outings with Golata, and frankly he looked, well atrocious. But nevertheless, it wasn't his fault that Golata chose to fight that match the way he did.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 04:08 PM

The Maxim decision was meant to be a bad one. And you keep talking about how many losses Walcott has well he was mis managed in his early career going up against guys with far more experience many great have many losses Charles lost someting like 21% of his fights so what he was still an ATG.

Well, that's true, I've acknowledged it. I think that Walcott is a great fighter inspite of those losses, and rate him inside the top 25 for his weight division,all time, arguably just inside the twenty. But there are other fighters who are heavily matched early in their careers (Liston being a good example) who manage a better return than two thirds of their fights.

You keep claiming Bowe was better what head to head? I rate Jones JR better head to head then Tunney at 175lbs but still rank Tunney higher becuse of his better resume at the weight.

Yes, but this is a balancing act. You have to weigh these things directly against one another and find an answer. In short, just becaue Jones has a better skillset/head to head capability than Tunney but gets ranked behind him doesn't mean the same thing has to happen here. It's just a precident, nothing more.

Walcott probably forgot more about the sweet science then Bowe learnt. I still don't feel that Bowe was a better fighter he only beat one top 30 heavy while Walcott beat Charles and Louis also Elmar who is top 30. Name me anyone beside Holyfield who Bowe beat who is in the top 30 heavy's?

1 - Walcott didn't beat Louis. He lost to him twice. You can't change history just because you don't like it. 2/3 of the press found for Walcott. 2/3 of the judges found for Louis. Louis wins. I have hig
hlights. You have highlights. My highlights have it close for Walcott. Yours have it however you have it. But the result stands.

2 - Ray doesn't make my top 30, I disagree that he can be considered a lock, although I accept he is a contender for a spot.

3 - Why are we talking about the top 30? Why not the top 15? Walcott against the top 15 - 0-4. Bowe against the top 15 - 2-1. Unless of course you have Charles in your fifteen, which is defendable, but not my position. Walcott then runs to 2-5. Either way, Bowe, when matched against the best has come out better.

When it comes to resume Walcott's is a lot better the only person who cleaned up like before they won the title was Liston.

Liston also lost one between turning pro and winning the title.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 04:11 PM

I have to agree here, and often wonder why more people don't see it from that perspective. I clearly remember watching both of Bowe's attrocious outings with Golata, and frankly he looked, well atrocious. But nevertheless, it wasn't his fault that Golata chose to fight that match the way he did.

There's a lot of backwards boxing perspective when it comes to rankings. For example,

"Moore was unlucky to lose the second fight with Charles and Ezzard came back from the brink to KO Moore who was also a bit unlucky to lose the third."

Now I actually think that is fair enough, but how about

"Moore was betean close but clear in the first fight, and dropped a thin decision second time out before being KO'd in the third fight in a thrilling trade."?

It's true that Bowe looked rubbish against Golota but it needs to be remembered that past his prime he emerged unbeaten by virtue of the fact he was able to hold on.

Sweet Pea

12-09-2008, 04:24 PM

But Bowe was better. Bowe was a better fighter, he was better at boxing. People who want to say there is no reason to rank Bowe ahead of Walcott have to start with that right there.
I think Bowe at his peak was one of the most skilled HW's of all time, sincerely. I think very highly of him. But if the points you're arguing with Minotauro are indeed the case, should Bowe rank ahead of say, Marciano? He was better head to head clearly IMO, and holds wins over a better opponent in Holyfield than Marciano ever beat. So is there a case to be made that Bowe can rank ahead of Rock?

McGrain

12-09-2008, 04:32 PM

So is there a case to be made that Bowe can rank ahead of Rock?

Given your position, I think it would be impossible for you not to rank Bowe over Rocky on a head to head list. But more generally, how does Bowe's head to head superiority (if it is a reality) stack up against Rocky's

Unbeaten status
Wins over Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis
Own head to head capablities (Which if we, for arguments sake, agree are worse than Bowe's, they are clearly better than Walcott's)

Having weighed the facts as they are given,I rank Marciano well above Bowe, and i'm happy with that.

Overall, I rank Bowe on the cusp of the twenty. I also rank Walcott on the cusp of the twenty. Last time I did a list, I ranked Bowe one spot ahead of Walcott. I'm happy with that,based upon a couple of factors detailed in this thread. I'm happy to acknowledge that the reverse is perfectly reasonable, but I won't entertain the idea that Walcott is a class above Bowe based upon the criteria laid out by my list.

Marciano Frazier

12-09-2008, 05:02 PM

1.How good was Jersey Joe as a heavyweight? Is he a top 10 heavyweight of all-time? If not, then where do you rank him? Was he a great hw, a very good, or just a good? Does anyone think he is particularly under or overrated? Do you rank him as high as guys like Dempsey, Holyfield, Patterson, Liston, Foreman, Tyson?
I have him in the top 15, but not the top 10. Since that puts him in the top .00001% of all professional heavyweight boxers, I think it would be reasonable to say that he qualifies as "great."

2.How good was Jersey Joe as part of his own era? Do you rank him higher than Lloyd Marshall or Jimmy Bivins? On his best day, do you think he was a better heavyweight h2h than Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore?
As a heavyweight I absolutely think he was better than Marshall or Bivins, and probably better even than Moore or Charles "on his best day," though they were more consistent. Out of guys who had their best years during 1945-1955, I would overall rank Walcott #2 behind Marciano, although a good case can be made for putting Charles a notch ahead of him as well.

3.Is Jersey Joe a top 100 OAT p4p guy?
I don't think so. Even if we think only in terms of the eight "original" weight classes and imagine that the pound-for-pound talent is evenly distributed amongst them, then only the top 12-13 guys from each division would make the top 100 pound-for-pound, while Walcott stands at #14 on my list of heavyweights. Moreover, I don't believe the heavyweight division has been as deep as some other divisions in terms of depth of talent historically.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 05:04 PM

I would overall rank Walcott #2 behind Marciano, although a good case can be made for putting Charles a notch ahead of him as well.

I would have said Walcott was clear ahead of Charles - wouldn't mind hear the case specifically for Charles to be rated ahead of Walcott.

mcvey

12-09-2008, 05:14 PM

Before, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lennox Lewis, Jersey Joe Walcott was one of the top ten all time greatest heavyweights. His achievment before George Foreman broke his record as the oldest heavyweight champion speaks volumes about his ability as an overalll boxer. Jersey Joe didn't have Shavers-Foreman-Liston power or Ali-Holmes-Patterson, hand and foot speed, but he was arguably the craftiest and smartest heavyweights in the history of the sport. He, like Archie Moore was excellent at setting up his punches and using the angles to maximize the effects.

Jersey Joe was that good and I'd say makes top 15 of all time heavyweight champions.
Walcott is a lot better now than he was in the fifties when he was thought of as an average champion :D

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 05:15 PM

Well, that's true, I've acknowledged it. I think that Walcott is a great fighter inspite of those losses, and rate him inside the top 25 for his weight division,all time, arguably just inside the twenty. But there are other fighters who are heavily matched early in their careers (Liston being a good example) who manage a better return than two thirds of their fights.

Yes, but this is a balancing act. You have to weigh these things directly against one another and find an answer. In short, just becaue Jones has a better skillset/head to head capability than Tunney but gets ranked behind him doesn't mean the same thing has to happen here. It's just a precident, nothing more.

1 - Walcott didn't beat Louis. He lost to him twice. You can't change history just because you don't like it. 2/3 of the press found for Walcott. 2/3 of the judges found for Louis. Louis wins. I have hig
hlights. You have highlights. My highlights have it close for Walcott. Yours have it however you have it. But the result stands.

2 - Ray doesn't make my top 30, I disagree that he can be considered a lock, although I accept he is a contender for a spot.

3 - Why are we talking about the top 30? Why not the top 15? Walcott against the top 15 - 0-4. Bowe against the top 15 - 2-1. Unless of course you have Charles in your fifteen, which is defendable, but not my position. Walcott then runs to 2-5. Either way, Bowe, when matched against the best has come out better.

Liston also lost one between turning pro and winning the title.

Liston was full time fighter not part time and my comparison was how they cleaned up the division. We could look at top 40 and Bowe would still only be 2-1 like I've been saying he only met one quality fighter the others are decent/good at best. Walcott fought 2 great heavyweight one top 5 p4p and numerous other good/very good fighters. Bowe has absolutely no depth to his resume. The reason I said 30 or even 40 was to show Bowe resume has no depth one fighter he met is on that list nobody else. Using this logic Moorer is 1-1 with great heavy so he should be above Walcott too then.

Bowe was only match against the best in Holyfied for all we know could have been an easy style for Bowe. I think Tyson would beat Bowe and loss to Evander. Maybe Bowe just met a great who was a good style for him. Louis beat Walcott twice then Holyfield drew with Lennox, Whitaker went 1-1 with Ramirez and drew with Chavez. Personally I feel Lennox is 2-0 against Evander and Pernell deserves much praise for both performances.

Resume is easily the most important thing when rating fighters for me many people don't rate Fitz high head to head because they think his technique is poor but everyone rates him high because of his resume and what he achieved.

Personally I think Walcott would outbox Bowe to a decision so I still see no reason for ranking him higher for me not beating Walcott if the met and his resume is much worse beating one great fighter doesn't make you better then Jersey Joe.

P.S Walcott never threw his title away because he was scared to fight someone.

mcvey

12-09-2008, 05:19 PM

Liston was full time fighter not part time and my comparison was how they cleaned up the division. We could look at top 40 and Bowe would still only be 2-1 like I've been saying he only met one quality fighter the others are decent/good at best. Walcott fought 2 great heavyweight one top 5 p4p and numerous other good/very good fighters. Bowe has absolutely no depth to his resume. The reason I said 30 or even 40 was to show Bowe resume has no depth one fighter he met is on that list nobody else.

Bowe was only match against the best in Holyfied for all we know could have been an easy style for Bowe. I think Tyson would beat Bowe and loss to Evander. Maybe Bowe just met a great who was a good style for him. Louis beat Walcott twice then Holyfield drew with Lennox, Whitaker went 1-1 with Ramirez and drew with Chavez. Personally I feel Lennox is 2-0 against Evander and Pernell deserves much praise for both performances.

Resume is easily the most important thing when rating fighters for me many people don't rate Fitz high head to head because they think his technique is poor but everyone rates him high because of his resume and what he achieved.

Personally I think Walcott would outbox Bowe to a decision so I still see no reason for ranking him higher for me not beating Walcott if the met and his resume is much worse beating once good fighter doesn't make you better then Jersey Joe.

P.S Walcott never threw his title away because he was scared to fight someone.
Many people thought he threw the second fight though,beleiving he could have gotten up.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 05:21 PM

Many people thought he threw the second fight though,beleiving he could have gotten up.

Against Marciano?

mcvey

12-09-2008, 05:27 PM

Against Marciano?

Yes!

McGrain

12-09-2008, 05:28 PM

Liston was full time fighter not part time and my comparison was how they cleaned up the division.

And Liston was fighting top men within ten fights. The point is, both had reasons to lose a few, but only one did.

We could look at top 40 and Bowe would still only be 2-1 like I've been saying he only met one quality fighter the others are decent/good at best.

Quite right, which is why it is probably important to keep them to common ground - top 15 where Bowe dominates Walcott. The point is that Bowe did better against the best - that point is irrefutable. If you want to weigh things differently and look at the top 30, 40, 50, whatever, that's fine, but you'll still find Walcott above Wills is ridiculous.

Walcott fought 2 great heavyweight one top 5 p4p and numerous other good/very good fighters. Bowe has absolutely no depth to his resume. The reason I said 30 or even 40 was to show Bowe resume has no depth one fighter he met is on that list nobody else. Using this logic Moorer is 1-1 with great heavy so he should be above Walcott too then.

I think you know that my formula is a little bit more complicated and involved than that. I can only say it again - just because I have Bowe above Walcott doesn't mean I have to have Moorer above Walcott, no, I can weight each fighter on balance.

Maybe Bowe just met a great who was a good style for him

Well you can analyse the styles. Did he?

Louis beat Walcott twice then Holyfield drew with Lennox, Whitaker went 1-1 with Ramirez and drew with Chavez. Personally I feel Lennox is 2-0 against Evander and Pernell deserves much praise for both performances.

Again, why does there have to be this blanket logic, one rule for all?! Why can't I take each fight as it comes? I have Walcott-Louis close, but i've never seen the fight. I go to the press, I find most find it for Walcott, some find it for Louis. The judges find it for Louis. I go with the judges.

Does this preculed me, utterly, from finding against the judges in another fight? Especially one where I have the film, like in these examples you give?

Resume is easily the most important thing when rating fighters for me many people don't rate Fitz high head to head because they think his technique is poor but everyone rates him high because of his resume and what he achieved.

Where do you have Fitz? I think you'll find you have him lower than his resume decrees because of the factors you mention. I certainly do.

P.S Walcott never threw his title away because he was scared to fight someone.

That's hardly the whole story. In fact it's got nothing to do with what actually happened.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 05:28 PM

Yes!

Any more on this Mcvey?

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 06:00 PM

[/color][/font]

And Liston was fighting top men within ten fights. The point is, both had reasons to lose a few, but only one did.

Quite right, which is why it is probably important to keep them to common ground - top 15 where Bowe dominates Walcott. The point is that Bowe did better against the best - that point is irrefutable. If you want to weigh things differently and look at the top 30, 40, 50, whatever, that's fine, but you'll still find Walcott above Wills is ridiculous.

I think you know that my formula is a little bit more complicated and involved than that. I can only say it again - just because I have Bowe above Walcott doesn't mean I have to have Moorer above Walcott, no, I can weight each fighter on balance.

Well you can analyse the styles. Did he?

Again, why does there have to be this blanket logic, one rule for all?! Why can't I take each fight as it comes? I have Walcott-Louis close, but i've never seen the fight. I go to the press, I find most find it for Walcott, some find it for Louis. The judges find it for Louis. I go with the judges.

Does this preculed me, utterly, from finding against the judges in another fight? Especially one where I have the film, like in these examples you give?

Where do you have Fitz? I think you'll find you have him lower than his resume decrees because of the factors you mention. I certainly do.

That's hardly the whole story. In fact it's got nothing to do with what actually happened.

We have established that Bowe has a better win (singular) and that Walcott has beaten more top 30, 40 etc which shows Walcott has more depth in his resume. I know you claim it is different for the individual but if what happens when the face the best is so important why is Frazier ranked so highly he is 1-4 with top 15 or Liston who is either 0-2 or depending on Patterson ranking 2-2 or even Tyson who is 1-3 (his sole win coming against old Holmes).

You can't simply judge how they did when they came up against the best fighter they fought but their whole career. Numbers don't mean everything regardless of what you feel the result should be you can't take anything away from Walcott performance when he face Louis he fought excellently.

Bowe did well against Evander nobody is saying different but he struggled with average/ decent fighters like Golota and Tubbs had circumstances been different i.e Golota was sane or the judges scored it like many viewers he could have been 0-3 against them.

And yes I do believe that Evander is a great who would always struggle with Bowe due to style. Riddick was the bigger man, stronger, harder hitter and better in fighter plus Holyfield loved to go to war and brawling with Bowe was a mistake however when Evander used his movement and jab he caused problems for Bowe one of the reasons why I would favour Walcott in this particular match. Also not to mention how poor Bowe defence was. I feel Bowe will always struggle with quality boxer who use movement and work behind and jab and will not get drawn into a brawl.

As I mentioned before I have Wills and Walcott next to each other and my rankings often change so placing Wills higher is fine by me.

I don't have Fitz in the top twenty heavyweights but place him 17 p4p.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 06:11 PM

We have established that Bowe has a better win (singular) and that Walcott has beaten more top 30, 40 etc which shows walcott has more depth in his resume. I know you claim it is differnet for the indivdual but if what happens when the face the best is so important why is Frazier ranked so highly he is 1-4 with top 15 or Liston who is either 0-2 or depending on Patterson ranking 2-2 or even Tyson who is 1-3 (his ole win coming against old Holmes).

None of these guys you mention lost 30% of their fights. That fact has to be managed, but it cannot be ignored.

Also, Frazier has the best win in the history of the HW division. This counts for a huge amount (it's also the reason I think Schmeling edges out Walcott). Working through each individual case, I see that the "rules" you seem to want to apply to the field based upon my ranking of Walcott just don't hold.

You can't simply judge who they did when they came up against the best fighter the fought but their whole career.

I haven't done that. The case is in the thread up until this point, you know I don't rate Bowe at 19 based upon his win over Hollyfield. I wonder where you rank Bowe? 24, 25? Isn't my ranking of Bowe (i would say anywhere from 17-25 is about right) pretty much reasonable? Surley it's the lower ranking of Walcott that troubles you.

Numbers don't mean everything regardless of what you feel the result should be you can't take anything away from Walcott performance when he face Louis he fought excellently.

I give Walcott credit for the Louis I and Marciano I, which I actually think was his best performance.

Bowe did well against Evander nobody is saying different but he struglled with average/ decent fighters like Golota and Tubbs had cirsumstances been different i.e Golota was sane or the judges scored it like many viwers he could have been 0-3 against them.

I think he was inconsistant - but the fact that despite these inconsistencies he comes through with only one loss speaks for him rather than against.

And yes I do believe that Evander is a great who would always struggle with Bowe due to syle. Riddick was the bigger mn, stronger, harder hitter and better in fighter plus Holyfield loved to go to war and brawling with Bowe was a mistake however when Evander used his movement and jab he caused problems for Bowe one of the reasons why I would favour Walcott in this particular match. Also no to metion how poor Bowe defence was. I feel Bowe will always struggle with quality boxer who use movement and work beind and jab and will not get drawn into a brawl.

But is the reverse not also true? Bowe appeared to have problem with stamina and mobility/footwork when tired/hurt. Here is in with a consistantly hard puncher with great stamina and chin who never ever stops coming - i think the reason they threw up such excellent rounds of boxing was specifically because each had stylistic advantages over the other. Certainly,I don't think Bowe claims the lions share of the advantages

As i metioned before I have Wills and Walcott next to each other and my rankings often change so placing Wills higher is fine by me.

As I said to Pea, I feel exactly the same way about Bowe and Walcott, who I have within three spots of each other.

I don't have Fitz in the top twenty heavyweight but place him 17 p4p.

I have him top 12 pound for pound, top 25 at HW.

One more thing. It seems like there's a bit of needle creeping in? I don't want to fall out with you, i've always enjoyed talking boxing with you. Just so it's said.

mcvey

12-09-2008, 07:09 PM

Any more on this Mcvey?

Opinions on this fight varied from those who thought Joe took a decent shot , went down and then the prospect of another do or die 13rds like the first fight just got to him and he decided to take the count , some thought he froze.A J Liebling , watching the fight said."In September , I had seen Walcott walk out and beat Marciano to the punch.But this time,he neither punched nor skipped, he just backed away.More from Liebling,"It wasn't a crashing knockdown, the kind that leavesthe recipient limp, like a wet hat,or jerky ,like a new caught flounder. This appeared to be a sit down and think it over knockdown,such as you might see in a bar room." "Jersy Joe may have begun the process of ratiocination right away.But the conclusion at which he was arriving was not instantly apparent. Like the drowning men in stories ,he may have been reviewing his whole life, with a long pause on what had happened to him in PHILADELPHIA. The dramatic significance of the fleeting seconds was lost upon the crowd,because everybody present,with the possible exception of Mr Walcott himself, took it for granted thathe would get up within ten seconds. And maybe he thought so too , for a while, but if he did ,he dismissed the thought. Sprawled on the canvas floor covering ,his right arm hooked over the middle strand ,of the ropes he waited for the referee
to count to ten ,and arose","Unable to hear the count we assumed that he had risen at nine .But when the referee a slight man called Frank Sikora spread his arms wide to indicate all was ended.Walcott walked calmly over to the ropes on our side of the ring, evincing a commendable independence of public opinion." "If he had maintained this attitude I would have admired him. The spectators were resentful,and their resentment was based on the suspicion that he had not been hit hard enough. " This is a decision every man must make for himself, and of all the sixteen thousand persons under the big shed,Walcott was in the best position to make it.But as he heard the boos , he changed his mind . He mimed outrage, batting his gloves togehter, and stam ping like a wrestler."
"Walcott made it plain that he had not ben knocked out at all. The crowd ,with a forlorn hope that the fight might be resumed- after all it had got precious little action for its money- increased its booing , for Walcott. Jersey Joe had stolen the scene from the man who had knocked him out!"

Walcott later claimed he heard the count up to about three ,then blacked out so could not beleive he had been kod. Marciano had actually been practising that right uppercut for the fight and said it was a good punch. But most newspapers, and the Ring castigated Walcott.

Marciano Frazier

12-09-2008, 07:26 PM

I would have said Walcott was clear ahead of Charles - wouldn't mind hear the case specifically for Charles to be rated ahead of Walcott.
Sure-

Charles arguably got the better of his series with Walcott, since he won their first two fights and was felt by many sportswriters to have deserved the decision in their fourth encounter as well.

He had a better numerical record than Walcott, with less-erratic performances. In his peak run, he strung together substantially more noteworthy wins than Walcott ever did without losing. He did better against Maxim and Layne than Walcott did, and arguably Marciano as well, when one considers that Charles at least put forth respectable results in both encounters, while Walcott's Marciano rematch was a complete bust.
----------------
Now, to provide counterpoints to everything above:
While the first paragraph above remains true, the record stands that Walcott and Charles were 2-2 against one another, with Walcott holding the only knockout and by far the most emphatic win either of them ever posted over the other, pitching a near-shut-out through six and then flattening Ezzard.

Although Charles did better against Maxim and Layne, Walcott did better against Johnson, and arguably Ray and Bivins as well. As for Marciano, Walcott did come closer to actually beating Marciano by outfighting/outboxing him than Charles did, with his insurmountable points lead in the first fight, whereas Charles' "near-win" depended on a freak-of-nature injury that was probably caused by a foul anyway.

And although Charles has the better numerical record, I believe Walcott's peak showings (Louis I, Charles III, Marciano I, etc.) were more impressive than any Charles put forth.

As I said before, I rank Walcott just a hair ahead of Charles, but believe a legitimate case exists either way. I think there have seldom been two contemporary champions closer in greatness than they were.

mcvey

12-09-2008, 07:30 PM

Sure-

Charles arguably got the better of his series with Walcott, since he won their first two fights and was felt by many sportswriters to have deserved the decision in their fourth encounter as well.

He had a better numerical record than Walcott, with less-erratic performances. In his peak run, he strung together substantially more noteworthy wins than Walcott ever did without losing. He did better against Maxim and Layne than Walcott did, and arguably Marciano as well, when one considers that Charles at least put forth respectable results in both encounters, while Walcott's Marciano rematch was a complete bust.
----------------
Now, to provide counterpoints to everything above:
While the first paragraph above remains true, the record stands that Walcott and Charles were 2-2 against one another, with Walcott holding the only knockout and by far the most emphatic win either of them ever posted over the other, pitching a near-shut-out through six and then flattening Ezzard.

Although Charles did better against Maxim and Layne, Walcott did better against Johnson, and arguably Ray and Bivins as well. As for Marciano, Walcott did come closer to actually beating Marciano by outfighting/outboxing him than Charles did, with his insurmountable points lead in the first fight, whereas Charles' "near-win" depended on a freak-of-nature injury that was probably caused by a foul anyway.

And although Charles has the better numerical record, I believe Walcott's peak showings (Louis I, Charles III, Marciano I, etc.) were more impressive than any Charles put forth.

As I said before, I rank Walcott just a hair ahead of Charles, but believe a legitimate case exists either way. I think there have seldom been two contemporary champions closer in greatness than they were.
I can't really split them myself,Walcott may have been the better Heavy though he was more inconsistant. Charles is greater p4p.IMO.

Minotauro

12-09-2008, 07:47 PM

None of these guys you mention lost 30% of their fights. That fact has to be managed, but it cannot be ignored.

Also, Frazier has the best win in the history of the HW division. This counts for a huge amount (it's also the reason I think Schmeling edges out Walcott). Working through each individual case, I see that the "rules" you seem to want to apply to the field based upon my ranking of Walcott just don't hold.

I haven't done that. The case is in the thread up until this point, you know I don't rate Bowe at 19 based upon his win over Hollyfield. I wonder where you rank Bowe? 24, 25? Isn't my ranking of Bowe (i would say anywhere from 17-25 is about right) pretty much reasonable? Surley it's the lower ranking of Walcott that troubles you.

I give Walcott credit for the Louis I and Marciano I, which I actually think was his best performance.

I think he was inconsistant - but the fact that despite these inconsistencies he comes through with only one loss speaks for him rather than against.

But is the reverse not also true? Bowe appeared to have problem with stamina and mobility/footwork when tired/hurt. Here is in with a consistantly hard puncher with great stamina and chin who never ever stops coming - i think the reason they threw up such excellent rounds of boxing was specifically because each had stylistic advantages over the other. Certainly,I don't think Bowe claims the lions share of the advantages

As I said to Pea, I feel exactly the same way about Bowe and Walcott, who I have within three spots of each other.

I have him top 12 pound for pound, top 25 at HW.

One more thing. It seems like there's a bit of needle creeping in? I don't want to fall out with you, i've always enjoyed talking boxing with you. Just so it's said.

There is no needle I actually enjoy talking boxing back and forth with you, I think it just a simple I rate Walcott higher and you rate Bowe higher just a difference of opinion.

I would probably rate Bowe just outside top 20 anywhere between 21-25. I agree with what you’re saying about Evander and Bowe both hold advantages over each other just Evander didn't fight a smart fight in the first and did not use his advantages to his best rather falling into Bowe's.

I guess I could put Fitz a few places higher p4p just don't know who to drop.

I under Frazier, Tyson etc didn't lose 30% but again I feel that due to poor match making and the fact he was a part time fighter only when he became full time then he started to win bigger fights. Henry Armstrong is a great example in his early years he was fairly inconsistent losing to fighters like Joe Conde only after he got new management did he go on top win so many fights in a row.

Anyway I'm off to do some work I got a presentation for tomorrow and have barley started.:hat

McGrain

12-09-2008, 09:14 PM

Opinions on this fight varied from those who thought Joe took a decent shot , went down and then the prospect of another do or die 13rds like the first fight just got to him and he decided to take the count , some thought he froze.A J Liebling , watching the fight said."In September , I had seen Walcott walk out and beat Marciano to the punch.But this time,he neither punched nor skipped, he just backed away.More from Liebling,"It wasn't a crashing knockdown, the kind that leavesthe recipient limp, like a wet hat,or jerky ,like a new caught flounder. This appeared to be a sit down and think it over knockdown,such as you might see in a bar room." "Jersy Joe may have begun the process of ratiocination right away.But the conclusion at which he was arriving was not instantly apparent. Like the drowning men in stories ,he may have been reviewing his whole life, with a long pause on what had happened to him in PHILADELPHIA. The dramatic significance of the fleeting seconds was lost upon the crowd,because everybody present,with the possible exception of Mr Walcott himself, took it for granted thathe would get up within ten seconds. And maybe he thought so too , for a while, but if he did ,he dismissed the thought. Sprawled on the canvas floor covering ,his right arm hooked over the middle strand ,of the ropes he waited for the referee
to count to ten ,and arose","Unable to hear the count we assumed that he had risen at nine .But when the referee a slight man called Frank Sikora spread his arms wide to indicate all was ended.Walcott walked calmly over to the ropes on our side of the ring, evincing a commendable independence of public opinion." "If he had maintained this attitude I would have admired him. The spectators were resentful,and their resentment was based on the suspicion that he had not been hit hard enough. " This is a decision every man must make for himself, and of all the sixteen thousand persons under the big shed,Walcott was in the best position to make it.But as he heard the boos , he changed his mind . He mimed outrage, batting his gloves togehter, and stam ping like a wrestler."
"Walcott made it plain that he had not ben knocked out at all. The crowd ,with a forlorn hope that the fight might be resumed- after all it had got precious little action for its money- increased its booing , for Walcott. Jersey Joe had stolen the scene from the man who had knocked him out!"

Walcott later claimed he heard the count up to about three ,then blacked out so could not beleive he had been kod. Marciano had actually been practising that right uppercut for the fight and said it was a good punch. But most newspapers, and the Ring castigated Walcott.

Excellent stuff, thank you.

I always felt like - Walcott took this murderous shellacking in the first fight inspite of the great first round he had. Now, he's had a horrible first round and he knows what's coming. He was old, he'd had a tough career, I could definitely see him saying, "no thanks" and understand that, to a degree.

Anyway or no, on the other hand, with the brutal KO he suffered at Marciano's hands, it seems that the othe explanation - Walcott's - is reasonable too. Maybe Rocky KO'd him twice in the first fight, in a way.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 09:16 PM

Sure-

Charles arguably got the better of his series with Walcott, since he won their first two fights and was felt by many sportswriters to have deserved the decision in their fourth encounter as well.

Very interesting stuff. I have similair thoughts to yourself as regards their placings but I always felt it was close and clear. Might be worth another look.

McGrain

12-09-2008, 09:19 PM

Anyway I'm off to do some work I got a presentation for tomorrow and have barley started.:hat

Well good luck with that.

As for Walcott, we'll just have to agree to disagree for the moment - I think 12 is a good bit to high and you think 20ish is to low.

18-23 would be my range for Walcott by the way, with part of what anchor's him there my feeling that he should be below Schmeling.

KobeIsGod

12-10-2008, 12:00 AM

Watching his fights will Louis, Charles and Marciano u can see how skilled the man was. Smart with very deceptive power and speed. He got a little too cute at times especially against Louis in the rematch but imo was robbed in the first fight.

His title winning hook on charles in one of the best punches in history as u can see below :yep

SuzieQ49

12-10-2008, 11:12 AM

1 - Walcott didn't beat Louis. He lost to him twice. You can't change history just because you don't like it. 2/3 of the press found for Walcott. 2/3 of the judges found for Louis. Louis wins. I have hig
hlights. You have highlights. My highlights have it close for Walcott. Yours have it however you have it. But the result stands.

Mcgrain do you give holyfield credit for earning a draw vs a prime lennox lewis? since 2 of the 3 judges agreed it was a draw? because that decision certainly wasnt any worse than walcott-louis I

McGrain

12-10-2008, 11:18 AM

Mcgrain do you give holyfield credit for earning a draw vs a prime lennox lewis? since 2 of the 3 judges agreed it was a draw? because that decision certainly wasnt any worse than walcott-louis I

I've already answered the exact point in discussion with Minotauro.

I don't have the whole Louis-Walcott fight on film. What I have leads me to score it close but clear to Walcott.

But I don't use my cards over the judges cards without very serious cause. These guys aren't in there to impress me but scoring judges.

The press had it around 2/3 for Walcott as I understand it. So around 30-35% of the press have it for Louis.

2/3 judges have it for Louis (if I remember rightly both judges score for Louis, the referee scores for Walcott?). There isn't enough there for me to "reverse" the verdict, IMO.

Lewis-Holyfield I, I have on tape (Old vcr). I've seen it many times, scored it a couple (it's a boring fight - would trade it for the Louis-Walcott film any day) of times. I think it was a robbery. I think it was a robbery, from what I saw.

No way can you produces 1/3 ringside reporters that call that for Holyfield.

Anyway or no, to answer the quesiton, I do give Holyfield some credit - I think he deliberately set out to make the rounds slow and muzzy, hard to score. He reaped the benifits of that, although they were illicit.

SuzieQ49

12-10-2008, 11:19 AM

I think walcott and marciano both beat bowe h2h. I like bowe over charles.

SuzieQ49

12-10-2008, 11:22 AM

I've already answered the exact point in discussion with Minotauro.

I don't have the whole Louis-Walcott fight on film. What I have leads me to score it close but clear to Walcott.

But I don't use my cards over the judges cards without very serious cause. These guys aren't in there to impress me but scoring judges.

The press had it around 2/3 for Walcott as I understand it. So around 30-35% of the press have it for Louis.

2/3 judges have it for Louis (if I remember rightly both judges score for Louis, the referee scores for Walcott?). There isn't enough there for me to "reverse" the verdict, IMO.

Lewis-Holyfield I, I have on tape (Old vcr). I've seen it many times, scored it a couple (it's a boring fight - would trade it for the Louis-Walcott film any day) of times. I think it was a robbery. I think it was a robbery, from what I saw.

No way can you produces 1/3 ringside reporters that call that for Holyfield.

Anyway or no, to answer the quesiton, I do give Holyfield some credit - I think he deliberately set out to make the rounds slow and muzzy, hard to score. He reaped the benifits of that, although they were illicit.

You must understand, walcott at the time was not a fan favorite. his manager was disliked, no one wanted walcott to win. the crowd and press were heavily pro joe louis crowd....YET most of them still found walcott to be the clear winner. I suspect those who voted for joe louis did it from there hearts and not there heads. walcott outboxed louis, he knocked him down twice, and outsmarted him all night.

After the fight, joe louis walked up to walcott and said "im sorry joe"

when asked about referee ruby goldsteins pro walcott scorecard, louis replied "i know rube, he calls em like he sees em"

john garfield was LIVE AT RINGSIDE, hes a huge joe louis fan and even he admitted walcott clearly won

McGrain

12-10-2008, 11:27 AM

But John Garfield isn't the man to decree my judgement. As to the 1/3 of the press and 2/3 judges picking Louis over Walcott because of how they feel in their hearts,that is speculation. I don't deny that the combination of -

Highlights favouring Walcott
Press favouriting Walcott
Referee favouring Walcott

Is a persuasive mix, but i'm not going to overturn the judges decision, start saying to people, "oh Walcott beat Louis".

Maybe Louis got a gift - I think it's more likely that he shaded a close fight that most people had going the other way. You feel otherwise, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think.

Based on what we have do you think he was better in Louis I than Marciano I?

mr. magoo

12-10-2008, 11:31 AM

I often joke about Jersey to get a rise out of people, but all kidding asside, he was a truly great champion and deserves all the respect in the world for the tremendous efforts he gave both in victory and defeat. He gave us some of the most entertaining fights of all time in the first Marciano match as well as in his battles with Joe Louis. I have never seen any of his bouts with Ezzard Charles, and some say they were slow at times, but nevertheless, they were fights of historical importance. Arnold Cream's story is one boxing's more fascinating tales. A working man with hungry children who earned his keep working full time in a factory while training under less favorable conditions at night or whenever he could find the time. Much like James Braddock, he often fought injured, malnurished or on short notice. He had a mixed bag of results against the very best and worst of the division, but at the end emerged as a true champion.

mr. magoo

12-10-2008, 11:34 AM

When I watch or read about some of Walcott's great late efforts in life, I often wonder if he might have won more of his earlier matches, with the improved training and managerial conditions that he had at his disposal later. Surely, he would have had my vote to beat Abe Simon had circumstances been different at the time.

fists of fury

12-11-2008, 08:42 AM

Opinions on this fight varied from those who thought Joe took a decent shot , went down and then the prospect of another do or die 13rds like the first fight just got to him and he decided to take the count , some thought he froze.A J Liebling , watching the fight said."In September , I had seen Walcott walk out and beat Marciano to the punch.But this time,he neither punched nor skipped, he just backed away.More from Liebling,"It wasn't a crashing knockdown, the kind that leavesthe recipient limp, like a wet hat,or jerky ,like a new caught flounder. This appeared to be a sit down and think it over knockdown,such as you might see in a bar room." "Jersy Joe may have begun the process of ratiocination right away.But the conclusion at which he was arriving was not instantly apparent. Like the drowning men in stories ,he may have been reviewing his whole life, with a long pause on what had happened to him in PHILADELPHIA. The dramatic significance of the fleeting seconds was lost upon the crowd,because everybody present,with the possible exception of Mr Walcott himself, took it for granted thathe would get up within ten seconds. And maybe he thought so too , for a while, but if he did ,he dismissed the thought. Sprawled on the canvas floor covering ,his right arm hooked over the middle strand ,of the ropes he waited for the referee
to count to ten ,and arose","Unable to hear the count we assumed that he had risen at nine .But when the referee a slight man called Frank Sikora spread his arms wide to indicate all was ended.Walcott walked calmly over to the ropes on our side of the ring, evincing a commendable independence of public opinion." "If he had maintained this attitude I would have admired him. The spectators were resentful,and their resentment was based on the suspicion that he had not been hit hard enough. " This is a decision every man must make for himself, and of all the sixteen thousand persons under the big shed,Walcott was in the best position to make it.But as he heard the boos , he changed his mind . He mimed outrage, batting his gloves togehter, and stam ping like a wrestler."
"Walcott made it plain that he had not ben knocked out at all. The crowd ,with a forlorn hope that the fight might be resumed- after all it had got precious little action for its money- increased its booing , for Walcott. Jersey Joe had stolen the scene from the man who had knocked him out!"

Walcott later claimed he heard the count up to about three ,then blacked out so could not beleive he had been kod. Marciano had actually been practising that right uppercut for the fight and said it was a good punch. But most newspapers, and the Ring castigated Walcott.

Walcott also claimed that he was waiting for his corner to tell him when to get up, and since his corner's count was a split second later than the ref's count, they told him to get up too late.

Strange if true, since the ref's count is the only one he should have been paying atention to.

fists of fury

12-11-2008, 08:49 AM

I always felt like - Walcott took this murderous shellacking in the first fight inspite of the great first round he had. Now, he's had a horrible first round and he knows what's coming. He was old, he'd had a tough career, I could definitely see him saying, "no thanks" and understand that, to a degree.

My gut feel is that Walcott could have gotten up. He was hurt and dazed for a little while by the punch but he seemed lucid enough taking the count.
Like you, I also believe that the knockdown brought back haunting memories of the first fight, and that Joe sitting there taking the count, basically made up his mind it just wasn't worth it to go through it all again - especially since Marciano could have only been more formidable than he was in the first fight. (More experienced, more confident)