Walcott Louis III

[janitor]

Lets say that instead of being matched against Marciano, Louis was simply given the shot at Walcotts title (plausible scenario)

Would Walcott have had his revenge and how bad would it have been?

[MRBILL]

Walcott wins the 3rd fight of '51 or '52 had it taken place........ Walcott had finally found himself at age 37 / 38..... BUT! Walcott was a little chinny, so anything is possible......

MR.BILL

[Mr Butt]

janitor i guess you dont like louis:lol:,for me at this point walcott comes away with a wide ud or even louis is saved by the ref on his feet late in the fight.louis is going to get picked apart::|

[janitor]

janitor i guess you dont like louis:lol:,for me at this point walcott comes away with a wide ud or even louis is saved by the ref on his feet late in the fight.louis is going to get picked apart::|

Walcott would have his revenge, no doubt in my mind.

[Mr Butt]

Walcott would have his revenge, no doubt in my mind.

yeah walcott to fast of foot and also hand speed

[djanders]

Walcott would have won this by a 15 round decision...in my opinion.

[mr. magoo]

janitor i guess you dont like louis:lol:,

This is obviously the post of a new man who does not know Janitor.


For the record, Janitor is one of the very best posters on this site, and an avid fan of Joe Louis. In fact, he actually converted me into a Louis fan myself....


Anyway, as far as a Louis vs. Walcott fight goes, I can't provide an intelligent answer in terms of who would have won. On one hand, Walcott was at the top of his game, and gave some of the best performances of his career at ages 35-37.. on the otherhand, Louis had stopped Walcott, not too long earlier and was fighting more actively than he had in a while in the year of 1951.. Additionally, while the Rocky Marciano loss may have exposed Louis's age, bare in mind that the Rock was a totally different type of fighter who Louis said had a style that exposed his weaknesses.


In the meantime, Walcott was aging himself, and nearing the last fight of his career......

CONCLUSION: i think that even an aging Louis would have always been Walcott's " Iran Barkley ", in the same way that Barkley was for Thomas Hearns.... He knew how to beat him, and even though he would have been older, Louis was on a serious course for the title in 1951, with the right tools to beat Jersey.

[mr. magoo]

Walcott would have his revenge, no doubt in my mind.


Please read my response to this conversation and tell me what you think.

[PetethePrince]

Walcott. He wins by a greater margin. Joe's reflexes and snap went from by the Charles/Rocky fight let alone by 53.

[RockysSplitNose]

Walcott wins the 3rd fight of '51 or '52 had it taken place........ Walcott had finally found himself at age 37 / 38..... BUT! Walcott was a little chinny, so anything is possible......

MR.BILL

Can't beleive you think Walcott was a little chinny :patsch:yikes - I thought he had a great chin!! :huh

But yeah I think Walcott pretty much had Louis' number - beat him quite clearly in their first fight in my opinion aswell so i kind of class him as having regained the title in a way - plus he had just become the first man to win a 15-rounder against Charles and the first ever to secure back-to-back victories over him too.

Interestingly back in 1936 the unknown 22 year old Camden kid Walcott was hired to join Louis' camp as a spar mate in the build up to Louis-Schmeling I - one of those stories was leaked out of camp that behind closed doors Louis had been knockeed down by one of his sparring partners - nobody knew at the time but it was Walcott. Billy McGraw a journalist for The Philadelphia Record quoted Jersey Joe as saying, "In two days I floored him three times, with 16 ounce gloves. With light gloves I'd tear his head off. He's too easy to hit"

[mcvey]

Walcott would have his revenge, no doubt in my mind.
Walcott by dec. I don't think he would stop Louis, too cautious to commit himself to a full out onslaught, but he probably drops the remnants of the Brown Bomber ,maybe a couple of times.
By the time Louis fought Marciano,he was virtually a one handed fighter,relying on his once immaculate jab and a left hook that, though still authorative,had lost some of its speed and venom.
Louis' vaunted right hand, was rusted in it's scabbard, and his legs ,never very speedy were mired in mud.
Louis would finish this fight ,looking like Foreman did after Axel Shultz

[PowerPuncher]

if it happens when Walcott is champion, Walcott largely dominates, if its straight after the 2nd fight Louis stops him again.

[fists of fury]

Walcott gave a younger Louis all he could handle, and so the result is (almost) a foregone conclusion. I don't think it would be that interesting to watch though...Walcott would be wary of Louis and play it safe en route to a wide UD.

[Bummy Davis]

Walcott was starting to put it all together afther the 2 Louis fights and because of the some decent paydays had the luxury of being prepared for his fights and was on a pretty good roll. Also showed he could improve and learn. I think it would be a duplicate of the 1st 2 fights, only JJ would not get caught in the same trap and get cocky but would not be aggresive. He may put Joe down but would be content on putting rds in the bank and taking the nod. JJ was getting better UD15 over JL

[Bummy Davis]

Walcott wins the 3rd fight of '51 or '52 had it taken place........ Walcott had finally found himself at age 37 / 38..... BUT! Walcott was a little chinny, so anything is possible......

MR.BILL

Walcott took some great punches from many of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history and although he was stopped by Louis and Marciano, that does not tell the whole story and many a solid chin has been busted by those 2

[Titan1]

Walcott would have won the third encounter by decision, unanimous.

[Longhhorn71]

Can't beleive you think Walcott was a little chinny :patsch:yikes - I thought he had a great chin!! :huh

But yeah I think Walcott pretty much had Louis' number - beat him quite clearly in their first fight in my opinion aswell so i kind of class him as having regained the title in a way - plus he had just become the first man to win a 15-rounder against Charles and the first ever to secure back-to-back victories over him too.

Interestingly back in 1936 the unknown 22 year old Camden kid Walcott was hired to join Louis' camp as a spar mate in the build up to Louis-Schmeling I - one of those stories was leaked out of camp that behind closed doors Louis had been knockeed down by one of his sparring partners - nobody knew at the time but it was Walcott. Billy McGraw a journalist for The Philadelphia Record quoted Jersey Joe as saying, "In two days I floored him three times, with 16 ounce gloves. With light gloves I'd tear his head off. He's too easy to hit"

Walcott had Louis down a total of 3 times in their 2 fights, and was pretty much even with Louis on the cards.

Louis just had that "extra something" that won him the 2 fights.

[mcvey]

Walcott took some great punches from many of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history and although he was stopped by Louis and Marciano, that does not tell the whole story and many a solid chin has been busted by those 2

Walcott fought an honour roll of heavy hitters,people should check his resume out before deciding on his durability.imo.

[janitor]

Please read my response to this conversation and tell me what you think.

Despite being the biggest Louis fan, apart from the barber in "Coming to America", my gut tells me that Louis's reflexes had dulled to the extent that he would not have been able to lower the show on Walcott, who was as slick as ever.

Do I even need to say that Louis is going to hit the canvas at some point?

Wish I was wrong.

Of course if you are right and Louis had won the title back at that age then it would have been an incredible acomplishment.

[TheGreatA]

Third time would have been the charm for Walcott, much like it was when he fought Ezzard Charles.

[Ted Spoon]

At the time of a third fight, Walcott would have zoned-in on the slowed reflexes of Louis and fed off the missed opportunities of not applying himself correctly in the first place.

The theory of Walcott's late-peaking was enhanced due to the fact his gameplans tightened as he went along, realising the importance of puttin' the hurtin' on when he'd made a dent.

Until then he had fought warily, as if afraid of gassing-out like he had done a few times in the past.

[Mr Butt]

This is obviously the post of a new man who does not know Janitor.


For the record, Janitor is one of the very best posters on this site, and an avid fan of Joe Louis. In fact, he actually converted me into a Louis fan myself....


Anyway, as far as a Louis vs. Walcott fight goes, I can't provide an intelligent answer in terms of who would have won. On one hand, Walcott was at the top of his game, and gave some of the best performances of his career at ages 35-37.. on the otherhand, Louis had stopped Walcott, not too long earlier and was fighting more actively than he had in a while in the year of 1951.. Additionally, while the Rocky Marciano loss may have exposed Louis's age, bare in mind that the Rock was a totally different type of fighter who Louis said had a style that exposed his weaknesses.


In the meantime, Walcott was aging himself, and nearing the last fight of his career......

CONCLUSION: i think that even an aging Louis would have always been Walcott's " Iran Barkley ", in the same way that Barkley was for Thomas Hearns.... He knew how to beat him, and even though he would have been older, Louis was on a serious course for the title in 1951, with the right tools to beat Jersey.

i dont kow really anyone but i like louis a huge amount myself but the louis that would of fought in this fight had little left and as the fight wore on his reflexes almost gone the dulling of his skills would of become more apparent i fear:good