James J. Jeffries vs. Jersey Joe Walcott

How about if we put in the ring a prime Walcott,instead of the 38 years old man Marciano faced?
I suggest the1947 version who gave Louis all kinds of problems, rather than the1952 version who was 1 fight away from retirement.

 

My first thought would be Joe taking a decision, confidently? no.

 

I was referring to the criticisms made of Marciano's opponents, one of which is Walcott, by yourself amongst others.

If your criticism is that Jeffreis opponents were often small, or old when they did some of their best work, then the same criticism is often leveled against Walcott.

Jeffries is going to be bigger than Walcott, and younger than Walcott here.

 

This is your post.
"People make exactly teh same sort of criticisms of Walcott, when he is held up as one of Rocky Marciano's best wins."

 

Jeffries and Walcott were both an even 6 feet tall.
Jeffries won the title weighing 206lbs ,Walcott 194lbs,are you saying Jeffries extra 12 lbs would be the crucial difference?
One assumes ,unless specifically stated otherwise,both men are matched in their prime.I pick the 1946,32 years old version of Walcott.

 

I presume that you mean the 1946 version of Walcott.

So Walcott is going to be 194, and if we are going with prime Jeffries, then he is going to be more like 220.

Not exactly the kind of weight difference that you would overlook, if this was one of Jeffries canonical opponents, or one of Marciano's canonical opponents.

You never gave ether mans canonical opponents any credit, for matching them in height, and rightly so.

My point is, that you should be having doubts here!

 

Given 5 feet 8 in 183lbs Sharkey gave Jeffries hell and was in front after 20 rds I see the weight issue as a non factor.
Given a 39 years old, 2 years retired ,47lbs lighter,12 years older ,Fitz smashed Jeffries face to bits before his hands gave out,I see no validity in your arguments.

 

We have of course been over these arguments before, and failed to reach consensus.

The way to look at it is thus.

If Jeffries beats Walcott, and we will make Walcott white for the sake of argument, is that a huge game changer on his resume?

 

I would say so. Jeffries' resume is great for his time, he fought pretty much every relevant fighter between light heavyweight and heavyweight (outside of the black ones) but I don't think any of them were quite as good as Walcott. That doesn't make his wins over Sharkey, Ruhlin (I couldn't care less what his manager says), Corbett and Fitzsimmons any less good. Walcott was just bigger and better than them.

 

I don't know why you would want to make Walcott white? If ,as a defending champion Jeffries was challenged by a black Walcott we both know he would refuse said challenge.
I am not dismissing Jeffries chances here ,I just feel Walcott should be the logical pick.I rate him superior to Corbett,Fitz, and Jeffries H2H.
Corbett's resume is decidedly underwhelming, Jeffries' is mostly comprised of wins over older ,smaller men coming out of inactivity.

Q Prime Walcott v 39 years old 2 years retired Fitzsimmons,who is your pick?

Q Prime Walcott against 33 years old,13 months retired Corbett who hasn't won a fight for 6 years,and that one over a man weighing165lbs.Who is your pick?
These matchups are against two of Jeffries very best opponents.

 

Walcott might have been bigger and better than them, but his resume would suggest him to be closer to their level, than he was to Jeffries.

 

A. Walcott, but not overwhelmingly.
A. Again Walcott.

Having said that I woudl probably pick Fitzsimmons over Rex Layne, who handed Walcott a loss.

 

And I'd pick Walcott over Sharkey who beat the **** out of Corbett.

 

As would I, but where does that get us?

 

Look you stated Jeffries was a dominant champion,let's look at that for a moment.These are his four defences of note.
Ruhlin ,retired on his stool between the 5th and 6th rds.
Ruhlin had been annihilated by Fitz previously.
Sharkey went 25 rds with Jeffries and was in front after 20 rds when the extra weight and size of his opponent seriously began to take its toll.
Many believed Sharkey was entitled to at least a draw in this fight.
Corbett, 33 years old hadn't won a fight for 6 years. After 23 rds Corbett had a handy lead,then he was caught with a big shot by his opponent and ko'd.
Fitz, 39 years old 2 years retired 47 lbs lighter12 years the older man.
The round by round report of this battle stated ,"Fitz hit Jeffries when and where he liked," breaking his nose, making deep gashes above and below his eyes with his accurate punching for which Jeff had no reply.
Fitz smashed his already suspect hands to bits on Jeffries bony face and succumbed to the 47lbs heavier man in the 8th rd.
Are these dominant performances?
Jeffries other 3 defences were outright farces .Corbett 36 years old experiencing eye trouble had not fought for 3 years and that ,a controversial win over Kid McCoy which many deemed an outright fake
Munro a tyro miner who claimed to have floored Jeffries is an exhibition.Munro later fought Johnson who contented himself with humiliating the burly Canadian over 6 rds, after their bout Munro was decribed by the press as not even knowing how to punch correctly.Jeffries made a pittance from this one sided mismatch and it was instrumental in his decision to retire.
John Finnegan 60lbs lighter ,trembling with fear.Finnegan had qualified for a title shot by being routinely ko'd in 4 rds by Gus Ruhlin in his previous fight.
Seven title defences ,3 of which were palpable mismatches.Sorry, I don't buy this Superman crap about Jeffries.

Or are they in 3 of the 4 fights cases of a much bigger man outlasting his smaller and in 2 of the 4 cases much older men ,absorbing their punches and winning wars of attrition?

In my view you also cannot be described as a dominant champion if, for reasons of colour your refuse to risk your title against the leading black challengers of your era.
In fact a reasonable argument could be made that Jeffries was only ever the heavyweight champion of the white race.