Vitali Klitschko vs Jersey Joe Walcott

I'm a realist. I don't believe in a soul.

"self-evident truth"

You mean like all men are created equal.

No offense, but it is a bit over-the-top to put Vitali beats Walcott on that plane.

 

Both Klitschkos were beating Byrd but Vitali did injure his shoulder due to Byrd's elusiveness. I have to give credit where credit is due. However Wlad knocked Byrd down multiple times in both fights & I don't think Chris landed a serious punch in either fight.

 

Seamus, now you need a brandy and a Cohiba.

 

Either way, some of the old farts who are 55 yrs of age or older are stuck in a time zone where they are extremely partial to a certain era of fighters. I can appreciate all of this since I too, am guilty as sin of doing the same damn thing to all the top dogs of the late 1970s and early 1980s...

However, in terms of reality, no freaking way does the cagey, tricky and master boxer Jersey Joe Walcott have enough size and strength to pull off a win over an in-shape, mammoth of a man with skill who hardly ever loses a round in Vitali Klitschko... Klitschko would engage Walcott and begin getting off with his own accurate punches with a thud and begin chopping the chinny Walcott down for a mid to late rds TKO...

Joe Walcott never fought a skilled hulk who's 6' 7 1/2" tall and ripped at 247 pounds before.... Walcott would NOT overcome that obstacle that V.K. presents.....

MR.BILL

 

People need to also realize that while Chris Byrd got lucky in 2000 against V.K. he was losing on points for Christ sakes. Let's not get delusional about that fact. Also, Byrd at 6' 2" tall and roughly 208 to 212 pounds as a heavyweight is actually two inches taller than Joe Walcott and twelve to fifteen pounds heavier, too....

Byrd would actually look big against Wally in the ring.

MR.BILL

 

I'm not an old fart. I'm 25 next year. I don't even think jersey would beat vitali. I just think he is more proven at a higher level.

 

JJW fought lots of bangers , ones who hit as hard ,or harder than clubber Peter, how come they didn't all stop him ,if his chin was so bad?

 

That "Proven" part bothers me a bit. Why? Cuz, simple, Wally's biggest pair of wins are his 3rd and 4th fights with Ezzard Charles in 1951 and 1952. Other than that, Wally usually lost all his real big "A" quality fights... Sure he faced some very good dude's, but his winning % against the elite opponents ain't all that impressive... Plus, also factor in a lot of them "A" opponents were 200 pounds or LESS! Minus his equally aged Joe Louis who was around 213 to 214 pounds in 1947 and 1948 when he tangled with Wally two times...

Also, I don't consider capable dude's like "Larry Donald, Lenny Lewis, Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams, Sam Peter, Juan Gomez, Chris Arreola, Kevin Johnson, Shannon Briggs, Odlainer Solis, Tom Adamek and Derek Chisora" as bad fighters or easy chumps to walk-thru.... Only two guys there (Solis & Biggs) either looked ill prepared or shot.... I'm sure in a time machine V.K.'s opponents could hold their own in a fading heavyweight era such as the late 1940s and early 1950s in which Joe Walcott looked his best...

MR.BILLhat

 

Come off it. The majority of vitali's top victories were ill prepared.

Performances against charles, bivins, ray and louise puts his "level" firmly above vitali's

 

Yeah, but Vitali looks like a dweeb. Given this irrefutable fact of reality, I can't understand how you could possibly attempt to render a rational argument against JJW in this one. Even King Kong couldn't have scored with Fay Wray if he had the face of a dork. If it looks like a doofus, walks like a doofus, talks like a doofus and boxes like a doofus, it's a DOOFUS! In my lifetime, I've seen nearly half a dozen still photographs of V.K.'s face, and almost 15 seconds of action footage. I am impeccably qualified for making a well considered and fully informed judgment here. Based upon my extensive knowledge, I would bet the mortgage on Joe.

 

"Byrd would actually look big against Wally in the ring."

Well, he probably was somewhat taller, but the bigger argument is poorly thought out.

Walcott was solid as a rock at 195. I think it is questionable if he could have made 190 if he had to in his later years.

Byrd on the other hand looks plump. He came out of the lightheavyweight division and in later years returned to it, making 175.

Byrd is bigger than Walcott in the sense that Don Cockell (218 for Valdes) was bigger than Sonny Liston (214 for Patterson).

I think Walcott is naturally the much bigger man. The real issue would be if Byrd is naturally bigger than Charles. Don't laugh. Charles couldn't and didn't make the lightheavyweight limit in his later years.

 

The result would depend on which Vitali Walcott was facing.

1) Vitali without a torn shoulder would stop Walcott, at about round 8, after dominating every round.

2) Vitali crippled by a torn shoulder would probably retire from the fight, to protect himself from long term damage [unilke Helenius who may have wrecked his career just for the sake of his pride]

 

Unless we are gonna mention Muhammad Ali or Evander Holyfield, I think a case can be made with just about every other ex-heavyweight champion racking up wins and adding padding to their records.....

Point is, your boy Joe Walcott has a losing % against his real stern competition...

Again, V.K.'s opponents over the last 10 yrs may not be what Ali and Holyfield fought, but who else has faced that lind of competition.?.?

I used to box at the boys club as a teen in the early 1980s as a 150 pounder, so I have a clue as to what I'm talking about... Styles make fights and determine who wins... 1947 Joe Walcott ain't beating 2004 V.K. no matter how you cut the cake...

MR.BILL

 

"Klitschko would engage Walcott and begin getting off his own accurate punches"

Why did Vitali miss 80% of his accurate punches against Byrd?

As anyone who has shot a rifle knows, it is much different shooting at a stationary target than it is shooting at a fast moving one.

You are judging Vitali's accuracy off his fights against big oafs with little or no mobility or torso movement or head movement. I think the ONLY fighter he fought who is anything like Walcott is Byrd, and Vitali proved to have a great deal of trouble hitting him and appeared unable to hurt him.

Byrd was interviewed on HBO right after the Vitali bout. He was unmarked. He looked as fresh as if he had just taken an afternoon nap on the couch.

**Just as an aside, I think the quicker Wlad would do much better against the faster-moving, elusive little fellows.