Vitali Klitschko vs Jersey Joe Walcott

"I used to box at the boys club as a teen in the early 1980's as a 150 pounder, so I have a clue as to what I'm talking about"

Your experience sounds like mine. We even were about the same weight.
The largest good fighter I sparred (by the lights of this backwater club) was about 180. He would probably have killed me if he tried but he was a nice fellow and took it easy on me. I did spar for fun with a kid who was 215, but he couldn't fight at all. Totally uncordinated.

I wouldn't consider my limited experience very valuable in judging what super heavyweights do or could ever do.

I wouldn't extrapolate from welters and middles and even lightheavies up to what happens with superheavyweights. Nature determines the optimal size of the human male and it is clear that going beyond the "norm" in size carries with it a cost in reflexes and speed and perhaps stamina.

This is probably the reason why, despite the advantage a bigger man has with a smaller man, the history of heavyweight boxing until the last generation was dominated by "large normal" men rather than superheavyweights.

*Walcott has a losing record against stern competition.

So does Vitali. Moreso, actually, as he is 0-2.

***"Styles make fights"

Well, yeah. Where I differ is I don't see Walcott's slippery style as being made to order for Vitali. The closest fighter to Walcott we have on film with Vitali is Byrd, and Byrd made Vitali miss all night. (In fairness, I scored this fight 7-2 for Vitali as I didn't think Byrd did enough offensively to win rounds, but he certainly made Vitali look bad). The closest fighter to Vitali we have on film fighting Walcott is Ten Hoff, and Walcott looks impressive and handles him easily.

The Ten Hoff and Byrd fights certainly don't prove how a Vitali-Walcott fight would go, but I don't see them providing evidence that Vitali handles Walcott easily.

And there is the joker in the deck that Walcott, unlike Byrd, has a dangerous punch. It often isn't the power of the punch but not seeing it coming which ko's a man. Walcott is much more likely to hit Vitali with a power punch he doesn't see coming than the big, slow guys Vitali has feasted on.

 

Walcott was more skilled, but I think he'd be over matched physically. Just not a good situation for Jersey to be in.

 

This^^^:yep

MR.BILL:bbb

NOTE:

V.K. is also quite skilled; just not as fluid...:deal

 

"old farts who are stuck in a time zone"

I certainly qualify as an old fart, indeed a real old fart

but I don't know about stuck in a time zone. Read my first post on the first page of this thread. I picked Vitali to win. I changed my mind and switched to Walcott after watching the films of Vitali against Byrd and Walcott against Ten Hoff.

If this indicates I am "stuck in a time zone" and narrow minded and unwilling to judge evidence, so be it.

 

Eddie,

Judging V.K. from 2000 against Byrd, is like Judging Joe Louis solely on how he performed against Max Schmeling in '36... You are not looking at the whole, clear picture...
:deal

MR.BILL:hat

 

agreed. not sure where i land but as has been said, hoff was not vitali

 

This is the classic selective reasoning regarding Heavyweights used on this forum. View one of the poorer performances of the modern heavy (and come to conclusions not supported by the judges or commentators) against a better performance of the old timer, preferably against some oaf who in no way outside of measurables resembles a modern CHAMPION heavyweight, and use this selective incredulous bending of logic to make an argument.

Well done, but entirely predictable.

For the record, I say Walcott actually does last a bit in this fight and wins some exchanges but not many rounds before Vitali hammers him down in typical, methodic fashion possibly involving a corner stoppage.

And of course, each is entitled to his own opinion and mine may be entirely wrong. We all approach these hypotheticals with different backgrounds and experiences. In most cases on this board, people know their **** exceptionally well.

 

Mr BILL

Which one of Vitali's opponents would you judge to be more like Walcott than Byrd?

It seems to me that the Byrd fight is the best indication about how Vitali might have fared against Walcott.

Joe Louis was the best heavy walking the Earth for over a decade, and impressively reversed the loss to Schmeling.

I don't think there is any good evidence that Vitali was ever the best heavy walking the Earth. If you believe so, I would be interested in your evidence.

 

"Byrd" and "Kevin Johnson" are my picks...... V.K. barely lost a round against either man... Again, V.K. was well ahead in 2000 against Byrd, but tore his shoulder up and decided to not continue...

V.K. was also ahead against Lewis when he was stopped on a gruesome cut...

V.K. is a winner...

MR.BILL:hat

 

"entirely predictable"

I hope using actual evidence about fights the two men had with the opponents who most resemble the fantasy opponent (especially if these fights are on good film) is a rather predictable approach.

"come to a conclusion not supported by the judges or commentators"

I have mentioned several times that I scored the Byrd fight 7-2 and agreed with the judges and commentators and actually have mentioned the HBO commentators by name.

"view one of the poorer performances"

Well, it certainly is. Why I think it is relevant is that Byrd most approaches Walcott in size and style of any of Vitali's name opponents. You judge we should should dismiss this mediocre performance in favor of how Vitali does with bigger, but slower and less elusive opposition. Why?

I think that the fact that Vitali struggled so much with Byrd is worth primary consideration.

The fact that Walcott did so well against Ten Hoff is also important.

Others will vehemently disagree, but that is how I see it.

 

"Byrd and Lewis"

So he becomes the best fighter walking the Earth by losing fights?

**By the way, do you give Walcott equal credit for being ahead of Louis (2nd fight) and Marciano (1st fight) when he was ko'd?

 

Well, yes, Wally was ahead against Louis and Marciano until he was clocked, but unlike Klitschko, Wally was a legit canvas kisser... V.K. was standing in his corner with his senses intact.... Wally needed smelling salts... Big difference between losses...

MR.BILL:good

 

Walcott was too prone to being cute and stopped.

Vitali was slow as a snail but he could time a punch as good as any shw out there. Given his volume and conditioning it seems inevitable he forces a ref stoppage here.

Young and byrd beat vitali prime for prime. But jersey joe doesn't see the final bell.

 

"Young and Byrd" LOSE to a healthy V.K. 4 outta 5 X, Holmes.....bbb

Neither "Young or Byrd" are in the same class..... V.K. is a future Haller up in New York down the road... Young and Byrd aren't gonna ever make it....
:yep:-(
MR.BILL:hat

 

"Vitali was slow as a snail"

Especially with his punches.

If Walcott could last 25 rounds with Louis without being knocked down or even seruiously hurt, I am just not as convinced as you are that he gets caught by Vitali's long, slow punches.

And Vitali may punch hard, but Byrd came out of their fight none the worse for wear.

As for Young, he seemed helpless against the opponent who most resembles Vitali, Gerry Gooney. I don't think Young had the foot speed nor the punch to deal with the really big fellows unless they foolishly punch the air until exhaused like Foreman.

I think Walcott is a notch above both Young and Byrd.