How should we view these fights of jersey joe's?

Maxims "victory" over JJW went down in Camden NJ
The philli paps screamed bloody murder over the verdict.

 

Jim Corbett was 34 and 37 in his attempts. Jeffries was 35 against Johnson.

 

I'm a little confused on your first reference... I thought you felt like there wasn't enough of a majority to consider Walcott winning that fight.... have you done some further research and realize.. that most felt like Walcott clearly won that fight?

 

:good cheers

 

So you still then thnk Louis showed supremacy over Jersey Joe? Considering as you do now, that Walcott should've been awarded the first fight?

 

Walcott gets a bit overrated by some.
I have no problem with him being called a "great".

But making all the excuses for the losses is not convincing. I mean, if you want to accept excuses for fights he lost, you have to recognize that the men he beat probably have excuses for losing too !

In Walcott's defence, he fought a lot of tough fighters, like many contenders did in those days. He wasn't built up on handpicked opponents, like most modern fighters were.

The post-WW2 heavyweight scene that Walcott emerged as a contender in was considered a bit of a drought in talent by the writers of time, for what it's worth.

I think Walcott did well in the first Louis fight, but he was KTFO in the rematch. And this is supposed to be Walcott's "prime" according to many, going against a Louis who was way past his own prime.

I can't see how he can rate higher than, say, Max Schmeling. But that's just me.

 

That's fair.
From what I know of Walcott, it looks like he had a couple of close ones go against him, one or two that were considered robberies even.
But he had a couple of close/disputed ones go his way too.

 

and I agree, my only contention was the word supremacy.

 

I guess, just as before, we disagree on that word and how it applies. I don't think Walcott showed supremacy when he's only 2-2 against Charles. I don't think knocking somebody out shows anymore supremacy than beating somebody on points virtually every round. Who do you think showed more supremacy... Whitaker over Ramirez or Marciano over Walcott. I don't think KOing somebody is any more impressive than somebody get a clear dominating points decision.

Again though, Yes Louis KO'd walcott in their second fight, which could be viewed as supremacy if you only looked at it on cyber boxing. If you go further, you would realize, that Walcott should've been awarded the first fight (goes directly against supremacy), and was clearly winning the second fight again until he showboated one to many times. Those two factors make it really difficult to use the word supremacy in regards to Louis and Walcott.