Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Can you think of any other fighter that had to support their 11 siblings and mother from the age of 16 and then later have to support a wife and five kids. Sure most boxers didn't have it easy in those days but that doesn't justify your vitriol.
In any case that doesn't have anything to do with him v Holmes. I think Walcott counter-punches his way to victory. It would be a decently close fight. My opinion of course.
The washed up version of Louis that he fought would've beaten all of Holmes opponents.

 

I got your point, but then we are getting into the "shoulda, woulda, coulda" realm.

Very probably Walcott's life circumstances were damaging for his boxing career, right. But using “what if” to imagine Walcott having the perfect life and fulfilling his hypothetical boxing potential is misleading.

Maybe under different life’s circumstances Wallcott would have been a better boxer… or maybe not. Or maybe he wouldn’t become a boxer at all. The point is we don’t know per sure and will never know.

Furthermore, the same case could be made for practically every and any guy who ever went into the ring. We could well assume that this guy or this other guy under the right set of circumstances could have been the GOAT.

At the end for good or bad, the information we have available is Walcott’s boxing performance in real life, and even if he was a very good boxer, he was clearly below Holmes' level.

 

I never made a 'shoulda, coulda, woulda' or a 'what if' argument. Don't put words in my mouth. I simply stated facts most of which are easily looked up.
The facts prove that Walcott was a great fighter, he became the oldest champion in HW boxing history and achieved that in spite of his circumstances and his supposedly subpar boxing record, much like Braddock did in the 30s.
Well I disagree with your statement that Holmes was a better fighter. He had trouble with an aging Ken Norton who was not as powerful and not as skilled as Walcott. If your argument is that Holmes should be ranked higher based on his accomplishments then I could agree. But that doesn't mean that he wins head-to-head.

 

Walcott needed 5 tries at the title to win it,2 against a past prime Louis, 2 against Charles who was best at Light heavy.
Walcott's weight for fights he lost implies he was not undernourished in those bouts,he may have lacked proper training but he wasn't half starved,imo.
Norton put up a great fight against Holmes who was fighting with a torn left biceps muscle.
Norton would beat the likes of Simon and Layne without much difficulty imo.
Walcott's inconsistency prevents him being classed as a great fighter imo.
Holmes is easily a top ten AT heavyweight Walcott is not top 20 ,imo.Holmes by decision or late tko.

 

Considering how well Walcott dealt with Louis' jab and power in 1947, it's not at all out of the question that he gives Holmes a very tough time and lasts the distance.

Louis was not prime but he was in very good shape and took Walcott seriously leading up to the fight.

Either can get a decision here, unless Walcott starts running for the last 5 rounds and gives up his advantage.

But Jersey Joe from 1945 to 1947 was a demon. He pretty much had his own bum of the month club on his way to fight Louis.
I wouldn't underestimate him against anybody.

 

Records can be somewhat deceptive, they don't always tell the whole story.
Walcott did get robbed in the first Louis fight and was winning the rematch before Louis rallied. The losses to Charles were close and he got those two wins back.
If cruder boxers (than Walcott) like Weaver, Witherspoon and Berbick could give Holmes trouble then I think Walcott has more than a good chance of beating him.
Rex Layne and Abe Simon would've been tough fights for Norton. Simon went 13 rounds with a prime Joe Louis in their first bout. Rex Layne was tough and had a hard right hand - Norton didn't like punchers. I don't see much evidence that Norton would've had an easy time with them. I'm not even sure that I would favour him.
Outside of the 3 fights with Ali (all of which I believe he won), his only other big victories are a TKO against a washed Jerry Quarry and a close decision against Jimmy Young (who was only good for about 10 fights).
Walcott didn't lose many fights to bums most of his losses are against top contenders and champions.
I consider both Holmes and Walcott to be great fighters. I just think that Walcott would edge him in a decision. My opinion.

 

Holmes won near enough every round vs Berbick, and a motivated Witherspoon beats Walcott.

 

He did have some shaky rounds against Berbick.
That's a good joke.

 

Shaky rounds ? Good joke.

Berbick was game and made Holmes work but Holmes was never in danger of losing if that's what you call "shaky" then your definition of "shaky" is different to mine.

One judge had Holmes winning by a shut out 15-0, if Walcott beat a top 10 ranked contender by an almost shut out you'd be praising him.

 

Larry Holmes was a winner. He never accommodated himself to losing. He never lost until he was an old fighter. Walcott, by contrast, lost a lot of fights when he was young, sometimes to unworthy opponents. Why such a fine fighter lost so many times would make a good story if any biographer knew the truth. The second fight with Marciano, the one-round knockout, was strange enough to cast doubt on Jersey Joe's honesty. We know his manager was a mobster. I favor Holmes because I'm confident Larry never took dives.

 

You don't know Walcott got robbed against Louis because you haven't seen the full fight , only edited highlights.
Who did Layne actually ko?

How many fights did Holmes lose?
You are entitled to your opinion.

 

I think it's common knowledge that Walcott was robbed most observers held that opinion after the fight.
Rex Layne had 34 kos out of 50 wins. If you watch his fights on YouTube you will note that his opponents don't react favourably to getting hit with the right. Layne's got kos over Bob Baker and Satterfield and has decision victories Walcott and a 74-7 Ezzard Charles.
Holmes never lost in his prime so fair play to him. But the Witherspoon and Norton decisions prove that he was beatable. Especially when you consider that fact that Norton was at the end of his prime and Witherspoon was only 15 fights into his career.

 

I don't think Walcott took a dive, I think he got hit by a big shot and called it a day/career. Given how the first fight ended it's hardly unlikely he would've been asked to take a dive for a fight he was probably going to lose.
If you want to talk about honesty and integrity as a champion then you should question why Larry Holmes ducked Pinklon Thomas.

 

And Walcott's 20 losses out of 49 wins proves he was beatable aswell!!!!!

 

Look at the Ring Magazine annul ratings for the 40s, delete everybody that he beat, and see what you are left with.