James Toney ~VS~ Jersey Joe Walcott

[ThePlugInBabies]

this would be fought in the cruiserweight division. who takes this battle of the slicksters?

[Sonny's jab]

At his best Walcott would win this quite comfortably. Toney was good, but Walcott was a lot better IMO.
Walcott is underrated. When he was on top form he was really formidable, one of the best heavyweights I've seen, one of the best ever.

[AREA 53]

James does have a big bag of tricks, ...i just think Jersey Joe has a Caravan full of Tricks, and the physical fitness to maintain them.
Jersey Joe for me, and James would have to be wary of that Walcott left hook !

[Minotauro]

Jersey Joe would win not trying to diss Toney but at this weight Joe does almost everything better.

[C. M. Clay II]

This would be a boring fight, but Walcott would win a clear 15 round decision.:good

[Senya13]

Toney wins easily.

[Luigi1985]

Toney wins easily.


And how would he do this against the pysically stronger Walcott, who hit much harder, had a much better stamina, etc.? Can you say it to me why? I know you´re a big Toney-fan, but it would be nice to see just for one time an objective post from you when it comes to a fighter you like/ dislike...


IMO Walcott had just too much on everything for Toney, he was also much more proven at the higher weights than James, so I have to pick Walcott... (UD, something like 8-4)...

[Big N Bad]

i have watched walcott and toney and imo toney gives the sly walcott a bad beating.

its actually toney that does everything better. toney said he copied his moves from great fighters like burley, charles and walcott. now when i watch these guys i notice that toney is waaaay more complete as a fighter in everyway.

walcott was so awkward, he just wouldnt be able to match toney in skill.
imo toney wins a decision but toney is no slouch when it comes to punching power!

[Luigi1985]

i have watched walcott and toney and imo toney gives the sly walcott a bad beating.

its actually toney that does everything better. toney said he copied his moves from great fighters like burley, charles and walcott. now when i watch these guys i notice that toney is waaaay more complete as a fighter in everyway.

walcott was so awkward, he just wouldnt be able to match toney in skill.
imo toney wins a decision but toney is no slouch when it comes to punching power!


Toney´s resume at the higher weights is so thin, I don´t know how you can write something like that, it´s normal that you look better when you fight a Booker- guy instead of a Ezzard Charles for example, IMO it´s clear, here in this matchup it can only be one winner...

[Sonny's jab]

In truth, James Toney never really did much after Roy Jones beat him up in 1994. At cruiser and heavy he lacks anything to compare to the level Walcott was at.

His win over Jirov was good, and then at heavyweight there was only really a win against a washed-up 40 year old Holyfield, and a win over John Ruiz, and the 1st fight with Sam Peter (many thought Toney was robbed).

Those are not the kind of results that would make him ready to beat Jersey Joe Walcott.

Walcott either won against, or was competitive with, JOE LOUIS, ROCKY MARCIANO and EZZARD CHARLES, among others.

[rekcutnevets]

A style that truly bothered Toney was Mike McCallums's. If there was anyone that is anywhere near to McCallum at heavyweight, it is Walcott.

Toney would also trouble Walcott with his speed, as Walcott would not have the same speed as McCallum.

I would pick Walcott by decision due to the heavier blows.

[radianttwilight]

Walcott by wide UD.

Toney's resume is extremely thin at CW/HW.

In the ring he's not much better off - he's just too stationary. Walcott is too mobile and crafty to fall for Toney's tricks. Toney always ate up wild sluggers with his defense, but Walcott is too accurate for that, especially for the CW Toney.

[mr. magoo]

I simply can't imagine James Toney beating Jersey Joe Walcott, especially not on the night that Joe knocked out Charles or battled it out to near death with Rocky Marciano. Toney would really have to show up with some tricks up his sleave to overcome him. Frankly, I think Toney was well past his best by the time he started fighting at the higher weight classes. Walcott's career on the otherhand, was pretty much just taking off around the age of 33. Pound for pound, I rate Toney higher given that he won multiple titles in a few different weight classes, but head to head, this is a bad matchup for James.

[albeziel]

Walcott by UD, close victory

[Hank]

Toney wins easily.

With a machine gun he does. Walcott would teach him stuff he never imagined. Wacott hit way harder, and ko'd Ezzard charles once. Toney beat Jirov.

[Senya13]

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title. He might have done some tricks to an old slowed down Joe Louis and to crude Marciano, but lost all four fights with them.

[RoccoMarciano]

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title. He might have done some tricks to an old slowed down Joe Louis and to crude Marciano, but lost all four fights with them.

Whatever... Shows how little you really know.

I'll be lookin' for a great Russian........... When I find one, you'll be the first to know about it :) Don't hold your breath... I've no desire to see an idiot wait too long.

[Senya13]

Walcott's record vs ranked opponents: 12 wins 13 losses. Several of those wins are controversial too, and 5 more losses were to unranked opponents too.

[Minotauro]

Walcott's record vs ranked opponents: 12 wins 13 losses. Several of those wins are controversial too, and 5 more losses were to unranked opponents too.

Joe has a lot more controversial loses then wins, remember when he first started out he fought where ever he could even taking fights on a days notice. I believe he took the Abe Simon fights on a few hours notice and was winning but gassed due to not being in fighting condition. I believe Abe as well as Marciano stated that Walcott hit harder then Louis (I personally don't feel he did but these guys would know better then me). Even Louis manager said that Walcott was more talented of the two watch his fights he is amazing in the ring and the fact he won the title at 37 (the oldest heavyweight champ at the time some say he was really older then 37 at the time).

A journeymen does not wins the heavyweight title and hold wins against Charles, Johnson, Elmer Ray, Maxim, Oma, Bivins, Louis (he was robbed in the first fight) and came closet to beating Marciano. He totally cleaned up the division before his title shot the only person I can say did the same was Liston. Walcott was a true great, so great in fact the Louis believed Jersey Joe could have beaten Ali.

[Sonny's jab]

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title. He might have done some tricks to an old slowed down Joe Louis and to crude Marciano, but lost all four fights with them.

Most observers thought he was robbed against Joe Louis.

Nobody ever "accidentaly won a title".

Walcott was more than a journeyman. Bad management combined with poverty explains his spotty record in the early years.
Black prelim fighters in the 1930s weren't paid well, were vulnerable to bad decisions, and often told to fight "handcuffed" or to take dives for extra cash.
Talented fighters like Walcott were used as cheap late-notice substitutes, and had to work long hours in manual labour jobs to feed themselves and their families.

When Walcott hit his stride with better management he proved capable of beating or competing with the 3 best fighters of the time - Louis, Charles and Marciano.

I'm not saying he didn't lose a few that he shouldn't have, or that he always performed well, but there are enough quality results to convince he was a true elite fighter, and he looks damn good on the films, IMO.

[Holmes' Jab]

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title.

Utter nonsense. At his best he was a fine fighter who'd give most top contenders from any era an extremely honest fight indeed.

[Senya13]

He might give them a good fight, but he'd lose a lot more often than he wins against top fighters of other eras. That's pretty much the definition of journeyman.

[Big N Bad]

walcott was far from a journeyman. he lost 6 times by ko (3 to great punchers) his record proves he is a great fighter no doubt.

james fought every type of fighter you could possibly think of, from middleweight to heavyweight. he's seen every kind of trick in the book.
the closest to walcott was definetly mccallum. i have got all 3 fights but have only seen the 1st one. and in that fight toney never had any trouble with mccallum, i dont know how mike got away with a draw that night. he was almost sparked out a few times.

i just cant see how jersey joe walcott out of all the people would beat toney by UD!
imo james toney is a far improved version of ezzard charles and you know what he did to walcott.

for example a 39 (i think) year old walcott struggled to keep marciano at bay, where as i see toney giving marciano a really bad beating at the same age weight etc. now im gonna get some stick for saying all this all the 'you dont know nutting about boxing' rubbish. but i know my stuff.

the only guys that i see giving toney trouble isnt guys who were similar size with alot of skill, cos toney can out manouver anyone if he was right but guys who moved alot and were rangy like ali, jack johnson, etc because toney doesnt move his feet too much, he can, just doesnt.

from watching toney i can tell you that anyone who stands infront of toney would never have a easy night:nono. joe louis tried standing infront of walcott and was dropped twice (with the shoulder roll right counter) if he fought like that against toney he would get stopped. :yep

now im really gettin on ppl's nerves, right? how can joe get stopped by middleweight toney? if you watch toney hit evander holyfield with them thudding shots, yoo'd know that nobody can take them all night, not even holyfield.
guys like louis (if he was stubborn and didnt take a backward step), marciano, and even dempsey. especially dempsey. he was an awesome fighter but he did things that would make it really easy for toney.


conclusion: after watching fighters from all eras, James Toney is the most perfect fighter in the history of boxing 9i can go into detail on why if you want? now your thinking this guys gone nuts) he stood a chance against any fighter.

:good

[Russell]

People seem to judge Walcott more off his first career than his latter exploits.

Guy literally took fights during times where he was food deprived, in poverty and starving.

Give me a fucking break.

[Senya13]

There's nothing to back up a myth of him taking fights starving and food deprived.

[Russell]

Far more than your bullshit accusations that Walcott's a journeyman, that's for sure.

[Smokin'Moe420]

well jersey joe beat ezzard charles, and ezzard is imo better than toney

definitely walcott on this one but it would be a dull encounter

[Senya13]

Walcott beat an old washed-up version of Charles, who was a natural 175-pounder in the first place.

[Hank]

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title. He might have done some tricks to an old slowed down Joe Louis and to crude Marciano, but lost all four fights with them.


That is a ridiculous reply, Walcott actually was robbed in first Louis fight your info, and was a solid contender before winning title. He did have long layoffs early, and did not really come into his own till Louis fights, being slow to mature. To call him a journyman is an insult to yourself more than to Walcott.

[Hank]

Walcott beat an old washed-up version of Charles, who was a natural 175-pounder in the first place.

From late 1940's on Charles was a legit heavy who would go down to lightheavy for some fights to make the money.

[Senya13]

Walcott actually was robbed in first Louis fight your info
It was a legitimate win for Louis, based on the scoring system used at the time, as was confirmed by NY commission.

To call him a journyman is an insult to yourself more than to Walcott.
Most of his career he was nothing more than a journeyman. A very inconsistent one. All those excuses about him starving, etc, are bullshit that are not backed up by anything.

[Amsterdam]

I think I'll go with Toney in the early rounds. Round 1 sounds about right.

[Sonny's jab]

It was a legitimate win for Louis, based on the scoring system used at the time, as was confirmed by NY commission.


Most of his career he was nothing more than a journeyman. A very inconsistent one. All those excuses about him starving, etc, are bullshit that are not backed up by anything.

He had no decent management until 1945.
He was a struggling black prelim fighter, got given fights for tiny purses at late-notice, he was a manual worker or on the relief checks, not a fully-paid full-time fighter.
Management is important, obviously.

[Mendoza]

this would be fought in the cruiserweight division. who takes this battle of the slicksters?

Walcott. He hit harder, and had the type of stuff that could spoil Toney's style of counter punching.

[janitor]

While both are superb boxers Walcott has three key advantages.

1. He hits much harder.
2. He is faster.
3. He is more mobile.

Taking these three advantages into consideration I dont see what Toney can bring to the table that he cant deal with.

[janitor]

I think I'll go with Toney in the early rounds. Round 1 sounds about right.

You are a little gem.

[Senya13]

He was a struggling black prelim fighter, got given fights for tiny purses at late-notice, he was a manual worker or on the relief checks, not a fully-paid full-time fighter.
If he had a little more talent, he'd still get through without so many bad marks. You don't lose so many fights, especially at your hometown, unless you are just an inconsistent journeyman. Great old timers fought more often and often in life conditions as bad as Walcott's, but were more successful and consistent than him.

[ChrisPontius]

While both are superb boxers Walcott has three key advantages.

1. He hits much harder.
2. He is faster.
3. He is more mobile.

Taking these three advantages into consideration I dont see what Toney can bring to the table that he cant deal with.

4. Toney doesn't like fighters who are laid-back and not aggressive, he is best when the opponent comes at him.

[Amsterdam]

You are a little gem.

Okay, okay.... 1 minute into round 2, I'll be fair to Walcott.

[Big N Bad]

well jersey joe beat ezzard charles, and ezzard is imo better than toney

definitely walcott on this one but it would be a dull encounter

no joe beat a washed up charles twice. where as when they were both younger, charles whopped dat ass.
also toney is far more of a complete fighter than charles.

[BUDW]

Joe would give james Toney a ass kicking like hes never had, tko in late rds.

[Luigi1985]

no joe beat a washed up charles twice. where as when they were both younger, charles whopped dat ass.
also toney is far more of a complete fighter than charles.



:lol:

[brownpimp88]

Jersey joe Walcott is a hot and cold fighter, i hate it when people try and make it sound like hes a true ATG, when he really isnt one. The man lost to a contender like rex layne at his peak, he has many other losses to lesser fighters.

[Hank]

Jersey joe Walcott is a hot and cold fighter, i hate it when people try and make it sound like hes a true ATG, when he really isnt one. The man lost to a contender like rex layne at his peak, he has many other losses to lesser fighters.

Rex Layne was tearing threw dicison at time, and had beat 3 top ten contenders, Layne was touted as next Dempsey. It's not like Walcott got beat by some John Ruiz type.

[Big N Bad]

LMAO :rofl
i forgot the main points.

walcott at best weighed below 200, only just. and in the cruiserweight division toney still had one punch knockout power. he had plenty of one punch ko's when he weighed around 190-200. so anyone saying walcott hit harder is ignorant. im not saying toney hit harder, we cant tell.

some idiot said walcott was faster, and another said he was more mobile than toney. maybe on his feet but it didnt make his defense any betta. toney is so good he could stand infront of you and you still cant hit him.

i know how great walcott was, but you guyz are sure underestimating toney, watch his fights and trust me you will have a different opinion.
since walcott is only a cruiser, i see toney stopping him, after breaking him down.

another important point, i have never seen a fighter like toney who had the same patience, composure and patience. it is almost impossible to break james toney in any way. for a guy with a bad temper he is amaizingly patient in the ring with great concentration.

[Sonny's jab]

If he had a little more talent, he'd still get through without so many bad marks. You don't lose so many fights, especially at your hometown, unless you are just an inconsistent journeyman. Great old timers fought more often and often in life conditions as bad as Walcott's, but were more successful and consistent than him.

You dont know how many fighters with the "talent" to become great fighters were destroyed by similar conditions, similar bad management and similar circumstances to the ones Walcott endured.
That's the reality of the boxing game.

You interpret what I say about Walcott as "excuses", but I'm just explaining the reality of the boxing game to you. You either understand or you dont.
Walcott was a great fighter, IMO.
All fighters lose fights, it's what they become eventually that counts.

[Senya13]

Walcott was simply lucky to make a come back when the division was rather weak. Louis was old (before both fights with Walcott in interviews he repeated that he has slowed down and is not the same fighter anymore), Charles not only has been past his prime, but above his best weight too. And Marciano beat Walcott both times, some other fighters made him look bad, but all came second best all the same.

[Marciano Frazier]

There's nothing to back up a myth of him taking fights starving and food deprived.
Walcott himself said he was "fighting on an empty stomach" at that stage of his career.

[Sonny's jab]

Walcott was simply lucky to make a come back when the division was rather weak. Louis was old (before both fights with Walcott in interviews he repeated that he has slowed down and is not the same fighter anymore), Charles not only has been past his prime, but above his best weight too. And Marciano beat Walcott both times, some other fighters made him look bad, but all came second best all the same.

The division was weak, but Jersey Joe Walcott was an excellent fighter when he was on form.

Joe Louis was slowed down but he was still a terrific fighter when Walcott fought him - and the majority of people who saw that fight thought Walcott had won, even Louis seemed to believe Walcott had won, as did the referee.

I can only say how I see it. Walcott looks an impressive boxer-puncher to me, on film footage.

[Senya13]

As I already said, based on scoring system used at the time, Louis legitimately won the fight with Walcott. It was only after the fight that the NY commission thought about changing the scoring system to give more weight to knockdowns in the scores.

[Sonny's jab]

As I already said, based on scoring system used at the time, Louis legitimately won the fight with Walcott. It was only after the fight that the NY commission thought about changing the scoring system to give more weight to knockdowns in the scores.

Lots of people scored it for Walcott.
Most of the boxing writers (familiar with the scoring system in place) thought Walcott deserved the decision.
One of the scoring judges scored it for Walcott.
The majority of people who bothered to score it (sportswriters), and they knew the scoring system, thought Walcott had won.
Joe Louis thought Walcott had won at first.
The two scoring judges who called it for Louis were in the minority of those who saw that fight.
The crowd booed the decision, almost unanimously. This is what I have read.

I'm not pronouncing judgement on a fight I have not seen in its entirety, I'm simply stating what others - who DID see it - thought.

[Dempsey1238]

Than under the ten must system, Lewis and Holyfild relly fought to a draw. The judges do get it wrong(On a lot of cases)
The same thing happen to Louis Walcott 1.

[Senya13]

Referee (who gave it to Walcott) often sees the fight different from judges sitting at ringside.

NYT's James P. Dawson saw it 8-7 for Louis and Arthur Daley 9-6 for Louis.
AP poll had 20 out of 34 writers voting for Walcott, but they couldnt really explain how a fighter who runs away all the time deserves a win.
Most criticism came from people who either watched it on TV or listened a radio broadcast, those who attended it live were less critical.

[janitor]

Referee (who gave it to Walcott) often sees the fight different from judges sitting at ringside.

NYT's James P. Dawson saw it 8-7 for Louis and Arthur Daley 9-6 for Louis.
AP poll had 20 out of 34 writers voting for Walcott, but they couldnt really explain how a fighter who runs away all the time deserves a win.
Most criticism came from people who either watched it on TV or listened a radio broadcast, those who attended it live were less critical.

I think that it was a borderline case to be honest. A fight where a decision win for either man could have been justified.

The National Police Gazette came down in favour of Walcott and said that it would recognise him as the champion even presenting him with a belt.

[Sonny's jab]

Referee (who gave it to Walcott) often sees the fight different from judges sitting at ringside.

NYT's James P. Dawson saw it 8-7 for Louis and Arthur Daley 9-6 for Louis.
AP poll had 20 out of 34 writers voting for Walcott, but they couldnt really explain how a fighter who runs away all the time deserves a win.
Most criticism came from people who either watched it on TV or listened a radio broadcast, those who attended it live were less critical.

OK, so what does all this tell us ?
Lots of people thought Walcott deserved the decision, as I've said.

[Big N Bad]

:lol:

from the footage i have seen, his boxing IQ is not as good as toney's. he is not effective in certain situations unlike toney. for example he couldnt fight with a 185 pound marciano on the inside. toney never had any trouble when he was fighting modern time heavyweights in close like evander holyfield, rahman etc.

he gets caught with shots that toney just doesnt get caught with. skill wise toney is far superior than alot of old time fighters.

[Senya13]

OK, so what does all this tell us ?
Lots of people thought Walcott deserved the decision, as I've said.
That they might have thought he deserved to win (not necessary that they scored it for Walcott using official rules approved by NY commission, which were different from ones used in other states), but that a lot of people thought otherwise as well, and that it was a legitimate win for Louis based on scoring system at the time. It wasn't a robbery by any means, a controversial decision that could go either way, but that's it. Louis also fought with a hand injury most of the rounds, to add to him already being on the downslide.

[Sonny's jab]

That they might have thought he deserved to win (not necessary that they scored it for Walcott using official rules approved by NY commission, which were different from ones used in other states), but that a lot of people thought otherwise as well, and that it was a legitimate win for Louis based on scoring system at the time. It wasn't a robbery by any means, a controversial decision that could go either way, but that's it. Louis also fought with a hand injury most of the rounds, to add to him already being on the downslide.

I consider Joe Louis perhaps the greatest heavyweight of all time, and I believe he was still quite great in 1947, so any man who can go 15 rounds with him and convince many people that he'd won, or hold Louis to a draw, even in 1947, is a very good fighter. Add to that the fact that Walcott LOOKS GOOD doing it on film, and that he LOOKS GOOD winning the title from Ezzard Charles 4 years later, and he even LOOKS GOOD losing the title to Rocky Marciano (another fighter I'd rate very highly on the all-time list) then I conclude that Jersey Joe Walcott was a very good fighter or a great fighter, and not a journeyman.

[Senya13]

Even Louis didn't think about himself being that good at the time. Neither did contemporary authors, they all knew Louis was clearly past his best. Due to specifics of his style, his reflexes and handspeed slowing down meant a lot for his effectiveness (as a counter-puncher), so that looking good against that version of Louis means a lot less that some people tend to think. But that's just my opinion.
Walcott looks very poor in his fights vs Charles, not that Charles looks much more impressive to me, but neither man looks like a true boxing master in their fights with that flat-footed slow-paced in-fighting with lots of clinches and in general fights being not very clean, both getting tagged by punches a lot more often than one could think by simply reading about them, and neither showing particularly impressive offensive arsenal either.
Looking good, or, rather, making Marciano look bad, it not that much of an achievement. Skills, coordination, cleverness, smoothness, Marciano looks very poor at all these things, so it wasn't that hard to look good against him for a while.

[janitor]

Even Louis didn't think about himself being that good at the time. Neither did contemporary authors, they all knew Louis was clearly past his best. Due to specifics of his style, his reflexes and handspeed slowing down meant a lot for his effectiveness (as a counter-puncher), so that looking good against that version of Louis means a lot less that some people tend to think. But that's just my opinion.


So why didnt anybody else do it?

If you look at the postwar rankings Walcott did a prety good number on the top contenders of his era to earn a fight with Louis. He was obviously the best contender out there by a substantial margin.

[Sonny's jab]

Even Louis didn't think about himself being that good at the time. Neither did contemporary authors, they all knew Louis was clearly past his best. Due to specifics of his style, his reflexes and handspeed slowing down meant a lot for his effectiveness (as a counter-puncher), so that looking good against that version of Louis means a lot less that some people tend to think. But that's just my opinion.
.

Actually, I think you make a very good point here.
Louis had slipped considerably, I will concede that.


Walcott looks very poor in his fights vs Charles, not that Charles looks much more impressive to me, but neither man looks like a true boxing master in their fights with that flat-footed slow-paced in-fighting with lots of clinches and in general fights being not very clean, both getting tagged by punches a lot more often than one could think by simply reading about them, and neither showing particularly impressive offensive arsenal either.


Walcott impresses me in the 3rd fight, where he wins the title.


Looking good, or, rather, making Marciano look bad, it not that much of an achievement. Skills, coordination, cleverness, smoothness, Marciano looks very poor at all these things, so it wasn't that hard to look good against him for a while


I thought they both good pretty good in that first fight.

[Hank]

Toney did not have one punch Knock out power, as big +bad said, and the division was far from weak, as someone else said. Weak?? Boxing was still at a peak, and there were many more fighters bxing as pros at time.

[Senya13]

I thought they both good pretty good in that first fight.
Marciano is not pressing the action enough and not throwing enough punches, things that were the essence of his success.

[RoccoMarciano]

Marciano is not pressing the action enough and not throwing enough punches, things that were the essence of his success.

BUT, Marciano won them all, regardlesss of the how, right?

Marciano changed his fighting style dependent upon who he was fighting. Whether the change was for better or worse, he beat them all. So in the end his chosen style prevailed.

Maybe he needed a couple of eastside experts to inform him on how to win a fight? I doubt it... :lol:

[Sonny's jab]

The thing is, however we want to regard Walcott - as a great fighter, a good fighter, or merely as a caretaker champ in a weak era - his accomplishments against opposition over 175 pounds - or even 168 - CLEARLY puts James Toney to shame.

Walcott may have fought Louis when Louis was old and had slipped, but Toney fought a 40 year old Holyfield who didn't even deserve to be ranked. I thought Toney looked good that night BUT Holyfield was no opposition at all. A shot fighter.

[Senya13]

I was not talking about this matchup. I think it'd be a snorefest, to say the truth, with neither fighter proving their superiority over each other enough to come up with a clear winner. As a boxer, Toney was clearly better, but this is style matchup that won't allow him to show his best qualities, in my opinion. Walcott knocking Toney out isn't happening either, he doesn't have the precision and the punchrate to catch Toney with several clean flush punches in a short time, and he's not knocking him out with one or two punches, Toney's chin is too good for that (better than Walcott's too, but Toney doesn't have one-punch KO power either to stop Joe).

[Sonny's jab]

I was not talking about this matchup. I think it'd be a snorefest, to say the truth, with neither fighter proving their superiority over each other enough to come up with a clear winner. As a boxer, Toney was clearly better, but this is style matchup that won't allow him to show his best qualities, in my opinion. Walcott knocking Toney out isn't happening either, he doesn't have the precision and the punchrate to catch Toney with several clean flush punches in a short time, and he's not knocking him out with one or two punches, Toney's chin is too good for that (better than Walcott's too, but Toney doesn't have one-punch KO power either to stop Joe).

If Walcott caught Toney with the kind of punch that KO'd Ezzard Charles, I think Toney would be KO'd too.

[Senya13]

1) It's hardly happening, they fought a combined total of 51+ rounds, Walcott was able to land such precise flush punch only once.

2) Toney has a proven better chin than Charles.

[Big N Bad]

The thing is, however we want to regard Walcott - as a great fighter, a good fighter, or merely as a caretaker champ in a weak era - his accomplishments against opposition over 175 pounds - or even 168 - CLEARLY puts James Toney to shame.

Walcott may have fought Louis when Louis was old and had slipped, but Toney fought a 40 year old Holyfield who didn't even deserve to be ranked. I thought Toney looked good that night BUT Holyfield was no opposition at all. A shot fighter.

i enjoy watching the holyfield fight. becos in the beginning holyfield came out very aggressive, he didnt look shot until he got shot in rounds 3 and 4. also at the end of the fight he said toney was too good too fast and a step ahead.
by watching this fight you could easily tell that toney would have whooped holyfield in his prime too.

holyfield was throwing punches, just that toney would counter and make him pay HEAVY! he hurt holyfield badly that night, both physically and mentally. its amazing how toney's confidence got to evander that night.

also if he was soo shot then how did he manage to fight for a world title and hold his own 4 years later?

toney beats holyfield everytime.

[Big N Bad]

Toney did not have one punch Knock out power, as big +bad said, and the division was far from weak, as someone else said. Weak?? Boxing was still at a peak, and there were many more fighters bxing as pros at time.

toney was knocking guys out until he got to the heavyweight division. matter of fact, he did knock some journeymen heavyweights out.

in the middleweight division he was deadly but he concentrated more on speed imo, until he needed the power and really sat down on his shots. in the super middleweight division he had a beautiful blend of speed AND POWER. same with at light heavyweight although it seemed he wasnt punching with great power at LH. but when he moved to cruiserweight, with all that weight, and speed, his punches became heavy, thats why he had more than a few 1 PUNCH KNOCKOUTS AT cruiserweight.

[Marciano Frazier]

I was not talking about this matchup. I think it'd be a snorefest, to say the truth, with neither fighter proving their superiority over each other enough to come up with a clear winner.
That's funny, seeing how on the front page you say as your first reponse, "Toney wins easily."

[RockyJim]

You're kidding,...right?? Gotta go with Jersey Joe!!!!

[Marciano Frazier]

Referee (who gave it to Walcott) often sees the fight different from judges sitting at ringside.

NYT's James P. Dawson saw it 8-7 for Louis and Arthur Daley 9-6 for Louis.
AP poll had 20 out of 34 writers voting for Walcott, but they couldnt really explain how a fighter who runs away all the time deserves a win.
Most criticism came from people who either watched it on TV or listened a radio broadcast, those who attended it live were less critical.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victim of the boldest robbery in modern heavyweight annals was 33-year-old Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), the 10 to 1 shot, who licked Louis convincingly in 15 rounds and then was frisked of the title by the stunning decision of the judges.
-Joe Williams, New York World

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS TAKES SPLIT DECISION OVER WALCOTT ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Los Angeles Times -- Dec 6, 1947

Fans Boo Verdict to Champion
Jersey Joe Walcott, 33-yearold father of six children, smashed Heavyweight Champion Joe LOUIS to the canvas twice tonight and gave him a boxing lesson for 15 rounds, but the ring officials awarded Louis the decision...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British sportswriter Pete Wilson called the first Walcott-Louis fight the "greatest robbery since Colonel Blood stole the crown jewels."

[Senya13]

That's funny, seeing how on the front page you say as your first reponse, "Toney wins easily."
Which, obviously, was a provocation to those who thought Walcott was going to be an easy winner. Nothing could be further from reality.

[Sonny's jab]

i enjoy watching the holyfield fight. becos in the beginning holyfield came out very aggressive, he didnt look shot until he got shot in rounds 3 and 4. also at the end of the fight he said toney was too good too fast and a step ahead.
by watching this fight you could easily tell that toney would have whooped holyfield in his prime too.

holyfield was throwing punches, just that toney would counter and make him pay HEAVY! he hurt holyfield badly that night, both physically and mentally. its amazing how toney's confidence got to evander that night.

also if he was soo shot then how did he manage to fight for a world title and hold his own 4 years later?

toney beats holyfield everytime.


I guess you think Chris Byrd and John Ruiz and Larry Donald would beat a prime Holyfield too.