Jersey Joe v the Greatest

I never had a glowing opinion of Young.
One of the many decisions that Ali was gifted.
Don't forget Walcott was sub-200 lbs so that automatically disqualifies him from winning.

 

,,,this right here

 

I see Walcott's defeats pre 1945 are held against him here and I don't think it's fair.
Walcott really came into his own under new management and with proper financing. He then beat every good fighter in the division and then almost beat Louis himself.
After that, Walcott wasn't as quick anymore and Charles proved too much of a challenge, as did Rex Layne.
However, it's unfair to call him inconsistent when he was at his best. He consistently took out the top ranking guys like Bivins, Oma, Murray, Baksi and others.
He dropped decisions to Maxim and Ray which he avenged and then gave a still very capable Louis a whole lot of trouble.
His skill, speed, craftiness, stamina and amazing durability put him away above the likes of Ellis and Quarry who were gassing out against an old Patterson.
Walcott should be able to give Ali a good run for his money and lose a close decision to him.

 

I've seen it said that Jimmy Young "beat" Ali because he made him lead, i.e. create the action. I would argue he " beat" Ali because he was thirty-four years old, 230 pounds, unmotivated, and had been through three wars with Joe Frazier and a war with George Foreman. He really wasn't Ali anymore. He had no problem leading against Joe Bugner and Jerry Quarry for instance.

 

Whenever McVey shows up it's time to PAR-TAY!

 

Walcott lost to
11-15-1 Johnny Allen in1945
Maxim in 46
Ray in 46
Charles in49
Layne in 50

Ray and Allen were 3 years older. Let's not blame Walcott's inconsistancy on his age ,he was always liable to drop a decision to someone that on paper he should beat.

 

He did. After losing to Allen, he avenged that loss and went on to beat most top 10 contenders of that period.
He lost to Maxim and avenged it twice. He lost to Ray and then avenged it and it won him a chance at the title.
He lost, had to wait a year for the rematch, lost again and had to wait a year to fight Charles. He was two years removed from his best performance by then and 35 years old. He lost to Layne the year after.
Its unfair to consider the 35+ year old Walcott the same as the 32-33 year old Walcott.
Every fighter begins to lose something at that age and Walcott is visibly less mobile after the first Louis fight.
It's a testament to his ability that he was able to keep up with fighters 15 years his juniors at that point.

 

It wouldn't even rank among Ali's ten hardest fights.

 

You set the time perimeters not me.What was he doing losing to Allen in the first place?
Why did he have to wait a year for the rematch? Did he actively pursue one?
What was he doing losing to a past prime Ray? You have excuses for him losing when he was young and excuses for him losing when he got into his 30's.

 

I have a good excuse for him losing when young because he was a part time boxer. He finally got proper management in the 40s and had some tune up fights, yeah he lost to Allen coming up but he beat him in return, proved he was better and then hit his stride.
He had to wait a year to rematch Louis because those were the conditions Louis gave him, he couldn't object.
I don't see it as an excuse to say that an athlete naturally got worse in his mid thirties, it happened to Ali, Louis, it happened and still happens to everybody and I don't see why Walcott is the exception here. The fact that he kept himself in shape and mitigated the recession shouldn't be held against him.
The fact remains, between 1945 and 1947 Walcott had his own bum of the month tour and he took out every worthy fighter around.
As for Ray, he wasnt past prime, was he?
Elmer was also having his best wins around that period, he beat Ezzard Charles and Lee Savold.

 

He was 36 when he knocked out 22 year old Harold Johnson

 

Part time fighter? He was fighting on average every 2 months
He lost to Allen 2 weeks after his previous bout,2 1/2 weeks after beating Gomez he lost to 35 years old Ray.He had fought 2 months earlier when he lost to Al Ettore.He had fought 2 months earlier when he lost to Billy Ketchel. After losing to Fox which was after his longest period of inactivity for a long time,[8 ,months] he went a month before losing again to Lazer . Stories of Walcott being half starved back thendo not tally with his weight in these losing fights. Nor should we assume he was the only fighter active and combatting these obstacles.How do we know what facilities,the likes of Allen,Maxim,Lazer,,Fox etc had to train in?

 

Gotta go with Ali but Walcott’s skill and craftiness would make Ali work for the win. This would be a match of expert footwork from both men

 

We would be justified in favoring Ali of course, but I think that Walcott would give him fits.

He would have a very awkward style for Ali to deal with.

 

Just because he lost 20 fights doesnt mean he loses. Walcott never had good management until much later in his career he fought very experienced guys almost from the start and was never protected as are most fighters Ali included. He gives Ali fits IMO does he win? Hard to say I could see Ali winning on a decision but then again it might be a Ken Norton 2 or 3 type of ¨ẅin."