Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Tin_Ribs · Dec 9, 2023

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

I knocked up this thread to explain why Walcott's physical prime and peak as a fighter aren't really the same. It's quite self explanatory.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-curious-case-of-jersey-joe-walcott-and-his-prime.643117/

There's seems to be a serious lack of information and understanding (and plenty of misinformation) as to when Joe's prime actually was and why. I've dug up one of my old posts that was long lost on a late thread page. I think it's worth a thread of it's own especially given the tripe we see dished up on a daily basis.

Ok i've gone and done some research as to why Walcott seemingly primed up latter than the norm and wasn't at his best at an age when he was expected to be in his physical prime. Scartissue and god forbid choklab were on the right track for sure.

To keep it simple, and it is actually very simple -

Walcott was destitute and struggling to put food on the table in his first career all the way to his 1940 "retirement". When he did get a bit of money e.g. $375 from beating Roxie Allen the money would be gone instantly to pay the grocery store, milkman, landlord and various other people as he was forever living in debt.

This went on all the way to 1940. Throughout this first career he had little time to train let alone train properly and also struggled to feed himself. Obviously this stunted him severely and led to the guy underperforming by a long way. He was talented but in continual poor shape and not being brought along.

The Pearl Harbour attack led to him getting a bit better wartime job. He was still living tough tho things were going a bit better.

He took two fights in 44 as he needed some extra cash.

The turning point of both his life and his boxing career came in late 44 when he was introduced to Felix Bocchicchio, a store owner, local promoter and president of an athletic club among other less savory things.

Felix brought in a manager for Walcott, had his license re-instated and took care of he and his families financial burdens and set them up better.

He then hooked him up with trainer Nick Florio who was experienced and held in high regard.

Florio got him straight into a regular training and eating routine which would obviously make one helluva difference given his previous circumstances. Three square meals a day with lots of meat, vegetables and roadwork were a big part of the new regime.

At this point Walcott was 30 and about to start realizing what true potential he had left.

They gelled well and over the next few years worked on feinting and hand movements among other things and developed Walcott's shuffle and "walkaway". Walcott's only other world class training had been 12 months with Blackburn in his first career.

So now he could concentrate on getting into good fighting condition on a semi-permanent basis. He still held his job but was able to do shorter weeks and put a lot more time into boxing.

From here on it was mostly up and up for Walcott and all this comfortably explains why he peaked late in life, later than countless others had.

Regarding the 46 losses - Post fight X-rays showed Walcott broke a bone in his left hand and injured knuckles on his right against Maxim. The decision was also controversial and the AP scored the fight for Walcott.

The Ray verdict was fair but quite close.

It's far from impossible Walcott was still improving a little.

Walcott came back to beat both Maxim and Ray straight away in his next two fights. The Maxim rematch was also close.

The Louis fight was next and I'd say Walcott due to the various factors outlined was now definitely prime from about 1946 with age slowly starting to collide with the career and lifestyle turnaround. It's fair to say Walcott stayed well above the level e he had been pre 1944 for multiple years.

Walcott was actually very consistent from 46 onwards. The only loss he had a solid favorite would have been to Rex Layne.
Click to expand...

That's a cracking post Johnny, I remember the original thread too, which was equally fairminded and interesting to read. Seamus was whingeing on his pedestal down at all the plebs in that one too. If I thought I was that far above everyone on here, I'd pack in posting rather than suffering the ignorant masses.

mcvey · Dec 9, 2023

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

I knocked up this thread to explain why Walcott's physical prime and peak as a fighter aren't really the same. It's quite self explanatory.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-curious-case-of-jersey-joe-walcott-and-his-prime.643117/

There's seems to be a serious lack of information and understanding (and plenty of misinformation) as to when Joe's prime actually was and why. I've dug up one of my old posts that was long lost on a late thread page. I think it's worth a thread of it's own especially given the tripe we see dished up on a daily basis.

Ok i've gone and done some research as to why Walcott seemingly primed up latter than the norm and wasn't at his best at an age when he was expected to be in his physical prime. Scartissue and god forbid choklab were on the right track for sure.

To keep it simple, and it is actually very simple -

Walcott was destitute and struggling to put food on the table in his first career all the way to his 1940 "retirement". When he did get a bit of money e.g. $375 from beating Roxie Allen the money would be gone instantly to pay the grocery store, milkman, landlord and various other people as he was forever living in debt.

This went on all the way to 1940. Throughout this first career he had little time to train let alone train properly and also struggled to feed himself. Obviously this stunted him severely and led to the guy underperforming by a long way. He was talented but in continual poor shape and not being brought along.

The Pearl Harbour attack led to him getting a bit better wartime job. He was still living tough tho things were going a bit better.

He took two fights in 44 as he needed some extra cash.

The turning point of both his life and his boxing career came in late 44 when he was introduced to Felix Bocchicchio, a store owner, local promoter and president of an athletic club among other less savory things.

Felix brought in a manager for Walcott, had his license re-instated and took care of he and his families financial burdens and set them up better.

He then hooked him up with trainer Nick Florio who was experienced and held in high regard.

Florio got him straight into a regular training and eating routine which would obviously make one helluva difference given his previous circumstances. Three square meals a day with lots of meat, vegetables and roadwork were a big part of the new regime.

At this point Walcott was 30 and about to start realizing what true potential he had left.

They gelled well and over the next few years worked on feinting and hand movements among other things and developed Walcott's shuffle and "walkaway". Walcott's only other world class training had been 12 months with Blackburn in his first career.

So now he could concentrate on getting into good fighting condition on a semi-permanent basis. He still held his job but was able to do shorter weeks and put a lot more time into boxing.

From here on it was mostly up and up for Walcott and all this comfortably explains why he peaked late in life, later than countless others had.

Regarding the 46 losses - Post fight X-rays showed Walcott broke a bone in his left hand and injured knuckles on his right against Maxim. The decision was also controversial and the AP scored the fight for Walcott.

The Ray verdict was fair but quite close.

It's far from impossible Walcott was still improving a little.

Walcott came back to beat both Maxim and Ray straight away in his next two fights. The Maxim rematch was also close.

The Louis fight was next and I'd say Walcott due to the various factors outlined was now definitely prime from about 1946 with age slowly starting to collide with the career and lifestyle turnaround. It's fair to say Walcott stayed well above the level e he had been pre 1944 for multiple years.

Walcott was actually very consistent from 46 onwards. The only loss he had a solid favorite would have been to Rex Layne.
Click to expand...

Top post!

JohnThomas1 · Dec 9, 2023

Tin_Ribs said: ↑

That's a cracking post Johnny, I remember the original thread too, which was equally fairminded and interesting to read. Seamus was whingeing on his pedestal down at all the plebs in that one too. If I thought I was that far above everyone on here, I'd pack in posting rather than suffering the ignorant masses.
Click to expand...

Good on you mate!!!! I think the worm has turned on that wee one

I had no vested interest in Walcott but sometimes you just feel the need to check things out to see if someone is getting a fair shake. Took very little time to get some good solid background info, info that's hard to refute but we both know some will just stay in denial and continue the agenda.

JohnThomas1 · Dec 9, 2023

mcvey said: ↑

Top post!
Click to expand...

Thanks Mac!!!!!!!!!!! When you get a little praise from the likes of yourself, Pricey and Tin you know you've done something right.

mcvey · Dec 9, 2023

Seamus said: ↑

In the post war decade the talent in the heavy ranks was seriously depleted. Blame it on the war exhausting that pool of the talent or people that size too in demand in more rewarding fields, it was true. That said,

Walcott beat a Ray who had just beaten him and who himself carried 25% of his fights as losses.

Maxim was a powderpuff lightheavy, who like other lightheavies was reaching farther than his grasp in the heavies.

Satterfield was a wild swinging lightheavy.

I don't see this great run in the post war years that others see.
Click to expand...

The depletion of the boxing ranks due to WW2 is definitely a factor in some veteran fighters being around when getting on in years.
In each case how much must be evaluated individually,

Cobra33 · Dec 9, 2023

I think this would be a great fight and Holmes would have controlled it through the use of his jab with at times Walcott walking him into counters.
I would pick Holmes by decision in a very good fight.

Dynamicpuncher · Dec 9, 2023

JohnThomas1 said: ↑

I knocked up this thread to explain why Walcott's physical prime and peak as a fighter aren't really the same. It's quite self explanatory.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-curious-case-of-jersey-joe-walcott-and-his-prime.643117/

There's seems to be a serious lack of information and understanding (and plenty of misinformation) as to when Joe's prime actually was and why. I've dug up one of my old posts that was long lost on a late thread page. I think it's worth a thread of it's own especially given the tripe we see dished up on a daily basis.

Ok i've gone and done some research as to why Walcott seemingly primed up latter than the norm and wasn't at his best at an age when he was expected to be in his physical prime. Scartissue and god forbid choklab were on the right track for sure.

To keep it simple, and it is actually very simple -

Walcott was destitute and struggling to put food on the table in his first career all the way to his 1940 "retirement". When he did get a bit of money e.g. $375 from beating Roxie Allen the money would be gone instantly to pay the grocery store, milkman, landlord and various other people as he was forever living in debt.

This went on all the way to 1940. Throughout this first career he had little time to train let alone train properly and also struggled to feed himself. Obviously this stunted him severely and led to the guy underperforming by a long way. He was talented but in continual poor shape and not being brought along.

The Pearl Harbour attack led to him getting a bit better wartime job. He was still living tough tho things were going a bit better.

He took two fights in 44 as he needed some extra cash.

The turning point of both his life and his boxing career came in late 44 when he was introduced to Felix Bocchicchio, a store owner, local promoter and president of an athletic club among other less savory things.

Felix brought in a manager for Walcott, had his license re-instated and took care of he and his families financial burdens and set them up better.

He then hooked him up with trainer Nick Florio who was experienced and held in high regard.

Florio got him straight into a regular training and eating routine which would obviously make one helluva difference given his previous circumstances. Three square meals a day with lots of meat, vegetables and roadwork were a big part of the new regime.

At this point Walcott was 30 and about to start realizing what true potential he had left.

They gelled well and over the next few years worked on feinting and hand movements among other things and developed Walcott's shuffle and "walkaway". Walcott's only other world class training had been 12 months with Blackburn in his first career.

So now he could concentrate on getting into good fighting condition on a semi-permanent basis. He still held his job but was able to do shorter weeks and put a lot more time into boxing.

From here on it was mostly up and up for Walcott and all this comfortably explains why he peaked late in life, later than countless others had.

Regarding the 46 losses - Post fight X-rays showed Walcott broke a bone in his left hand and injured knuckles on his right against Maxim. The decision was also controversial and the AP scored the fight for Walcott.

The Ray verdict was fair but quite close.

It's far from impossible Walcott was still improving a little.

Walcott came back to beat both Maxim and Ray straight away in his next two fights. The Maxim rematch was also close.

The Louis fight was next and I'd say Walcott due to the various factors outlined was now definitely prime from about 1946 with age slowly starting to collide with the career and lifestyle turnaround. It's fair to say Walcott stayed well above the level e he had been pre 1944 for multiple years.

Walcott was actually very consistent from 46 onwards. The only loss he had a solid favorite would have been to Rex Layne.
Click to expand...

Very informative mate I learnt alot but to play devils advocate I still don't see a case for Walcott being favoured over Holmes.

JohnThomas1 · Dec 9, 2023

Dynamicpuncher said: ↑

Very informative mate I learnt alot but to play devils advocate I still don't see a case for Walcott being favoured over Holmes.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was never about that.

InMemoryofJakeLamotta · Apr 19, 2024

Shay Sonya said: ↑

I am going with Larry Holmes over Jersey Joe Walcott by Decision in 15 rounds. I think Jersey Joe was crafty enough at his best to have his moments against Larry and last through the 15 rounds. I am giving Larry Holmes the win by a fairly close but Unanimous Decision. Maybe 144-141-ish?
Click to expand...

I concur with this very reasonable take.

Ney · Apr 19, 2024

Close throughout but I have Holmes winning by a late stoppage.

Log in or Sign up

Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Tin_Ribs Me Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Cobra33 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Dynamicpuncher Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Ney Boxing Junkie Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Tin_Ribs Me Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Cobra33 Boxing Junkie Full Member

Dynamicpuncher Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

JohnThomas1 VIP Member

InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Ney Boxing Junkie Full Member