Did Jersey Joe have The Perfect Style To Beat Marciano?

Not there styles but there size lol context matters for those losses…now about Walcott did you hear what multiple world champions have said about the legendary Jersey Joe Walcott?

 

Their physical assets manifested in particular styles, styles that would make Marciano look silly.

 

Well when you’re around 40lbs heavier and a champ I hope so! Not of the opinion Marciano beats those guys, just far, far too big,

 

Walcott was actually older than Joe Louis. They were born the same year, but Walcott was born in January and Louis in May

 

And better boxers by magnitudes! I'm glad we agree.

 

Louis was clearly in decline. Walcott was fighting about as well as he had at any stretch in his up-and-down career.

Yet the Brown Bomber beat him twice.

 

Oh no you don’t!

 

LOL no.

 

Absolutely. Magnitudes better. And they would clown him right out of the ring, bounce him like a beach ball into the third row.

 

Walcott had the assets to trouble a lot of heavyweights of various styles. A big punch in both hands and elite level counter punching skills as well as plenty of toughness was definitely troublesome for Marciano. Marciano brought his own stylistic assets as well tho: he punched big with both hands, had incredible endurance, possessed great durability and loved to move the fight in close. These all held him in good stead against Walcott and his style. Their styles blended well and produced one of the most famous fights in history.

 

All were magnitudes bigger. All would beat him. None were magnitudes better. Vitali wasn’t magnitudes better than anybody. Please.

 

That’s hard to say, apparently Marciano was having a lot of vision problems in the fight. In the rematch Walcott did not do very well.

 

Walcott had the style to beat any proper sized L-HW and HW in history, for no other reason than he was excellent... and even excellent fighter do lose and if you fight long enough and enough top fighters long enough you will.

and as long as all of them fights are Straight, occasional losses are to be expect and change nothing about a fighters ability & greatness.

 

He lost 20 times. And this isn’t one of those cases of a guy who fought on far too long accumulating losses … he was a champ/contender at the end of his run.

For every five fights he won over the course of his career, he lost two. Most great fighters do far better than that, and it’s not like everyone who beat him was punching a Hall of Fame ticket either.

He had some skills for sure, but he was remarkably inconsistent.

 

He beat Maxim twice after the loss, that's resounding enough. His win over Ray was more convincing than Ray's win over him. MD Vs SD.

You cling on to that Allen loss very tightly. That's when Walcott was still getting back in shape. He rematched Allen shortly after and beat him on points and then again knocked him out. Obviously he was still getting his bearings when Allen beat him. He had no wins over contenders at the point Allen defeated him.

Maxim was ranked at heavyweight 5 times in the 1940s.

Murray was ranked 4 times in the 1940s.

Never said it was and neither did he have to. He beat the contenders that were around and did it in consistent fashion.

He fought Louis twice and got knocked out, like everyone who fought Louis twice, regardless of how good they were.

Funnily enough, from 1945 to 1948 is when Walcott was actually getting his most deserved title shots.
From August 1945 to June 1948 Walcott had four losses, with only one of them being a legitimately convincing loss. The rest is big wins against the best guys around.