Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Boxed Ears, Apr 15, 2013.


  1. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,468
    Sep 7, 2008
    Yeah Fenech deserves a shout, he's in this kinda' bracket too.

    Starling? Kid Chocolate? Young Stribling? Flash Elorde? Ken Buchanan?
     
  2. turbotime

    turbotime Hall Of Famer Full Member

    42,571
    3,764
    May 4, 2012
    :rofl


    Patterson or Walcott for you?
     
  3. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Great, he beat Louis (yes he did), usually was on the unfair end of decisions that make his record look worse than what it should be, climbed up the HW version of the murderer's row to get his title shot, became HW Champ, the sexiest KO in HW Championship history, pure swag, what more do you want?
     
  4. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,468
    Sep 7, 2008
    He didn't beat Louis.
     
  5. Brownies

    Brownies Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,776
    8
    Aug 16, 2010
    ATG KO to win the tittle againt Charles
    ATG defence
    ATG shuffle
    ATG fun guy to watch

    Looks like a bull, yet danced like a ballerina. Known as a tricky boxer, yet packed a great left hook.

    He's got enough good wins and an history interesting enough to be a solid ATG for me.
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,074
    48,248
    Mar 21, 2007
    Very good OP.

    He's not great for me, no. But this is really easy for me now i have an actually top 130ish to think on when you ask.
     
  7. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    Abe Simon gets no love around here. 'Cos he was a big oaf. But ..
    If the first Louis-Simon fight was on film and not just the second one, he'd probably be better appreciated.
    He gave Louis a very tough challenge the first time around, some reports say the toughest challenger to that date, and he troubled Louis with his jab.

    He was big, clumsy and tough.
    BIG and TOUGH.
    Like about FIFTY or SIXTY POUNDS bigger than Jersey Joe Walcott, about 5 inches taller, and he took a good shot.
    Yeah, he was a clumsy oaf, but what the hell.

    The only people who have a hard time trying to explain how and why Walcott would lose to him, or coming up with hard luck stories to mitigate Walcott's loss, are certainly over-rating Walcott.

    Walcott was a VERY GOOD fighter (good enough to be champ) with some iconic moves in his repetoire.
     
  8. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Great for me.. but everybody knows how I feel on this matter already. With names like Johnson... E. Ray x 2... maxim x2... Bivens... Charles x2.. How do you beat names like that and not be great. Come on people. Just because he was inconsistent doesn't make him not great. You need to factor in.. some poor decision goings againsts him.. He was LONG IN THE TOOTH before he finally got any backing and any good fights. Yet, he still produced but those factors make most inconsistent. He beat Louis the first time around (we all know what the results SHOULD'VE been not what they were).. Took Rocky life and death in their first meeting and was well ahead before the KO. Point is, you can't have names like that and not be great. He wasn't a natural HW but still won the title while past his physical prime. Imagine if he had proper backing and was well trained and started boxing during his physical prime... People need to factor these things in before jumping the gun on his inconsistency. Anyways... Great for me.
     
  9. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,468
    Sep 7, 2008
    Thing is though, imagine how much we'd hammer a 'great' fighter today if a lesser Tyson Fury laid hands on him clumsily.

    Walcott would catch the flak rather than Simon get kudos I reckon.
     
  10. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,468
    Sep 7, 2008
    This is where your argument falls down my friend.
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,990
    22,130
    Sep 15, 2009
    I've decided to take a blanket refusal on robberies I haven't seen.

    Show me footage and I'll make my mind up but otherwise the official result will do.

    Louis beat Walcott in a close, debatable fight, nothing more needs saying on the matter.
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,990
    22,130
    Sep 15, 2009
    Also this thing about Walcott being a small man who won the title, he knocked out a man he outweighed, scraped by a man he outweighed and then was twice knocked out by a man he outweighed.

    That's the truth behind his title run.

    Him being small is a bit misleading.
     
  13. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    I know your stance big flea but I also know you're able to make deductive reasoning and take things to their logical conclusion.. whether you can see the fight or not. This goes for Luf as well. Think about it and take the points to their logical conclusions...

    More people thought Walcott won... this goes for Fans... Sportswriters and the person closest to the fight. Shoot, Louis didn't even think he won and was trying to leave the ring... This means the decision was most likely not the correct one when the majority who saw the fight including the ref thought Walcott won. Then, if you factor in a more just scoring system than the one used in the day... There is no logical conclusion other than a Walcott win. It's impossible to still say Louis would've won under current criteria. That isn't logically possible. Thus, I can safely say Walcott probably should've won under the criteria of the day.. and definatly won under current criteria.

    Again though, how do some not take into account that Walcott was past his physical prime when he actually started to get good fights. He was already long in the tooth by then. He wasn't properly backed nor properly trained in his early inconsistent days. How are these things not factored in.. and instead we just call him inconsistent? **** he had to work other jobs while boxing just to make ends meat. Who wouldn't expect inconsistent results most of the time? Point is, when you take things in their proper context... beating Bivens.. Ray x2.. Maxim x2... Charles x2.. H. Johnson.... You can't NOT BE GREAT beating those guys. No way no how. Then when you factor in also likely beating Louis and being comfortably ahead against another all time great HW... when you're not a natural HW.. yeah I think that qualifies him as great imo.
     
  14. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Tell me.. how much did he outweigh Marciano and charles please luf? I hope you are not saying he outweighed louis 2. You do agree he was under 200 pounds right? Which as you know... isn't at the HW limit.
     
  15. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    Well, a prime Joe Louis got hit by Abe Simon, in the first fight Louis was marked up pretty good, so for me there's no mystery.
    To me, Walcott at his best, against the field, is probably a level above Abe Simon. He was a champion after all.
    But he's not LEVELS above.

    i don't rate Walcott high enough to even bother to hand him flak about losing to Abe Simon. He lost to a lot of fighters.
    If I wanted to point out where he's lacking compared to the greats I'd point to how, in his 'prime years', he was KO'd by a distinctly past-prime Joe Louis. Which puts him more towards the level of an Abe Simon again.