Muhammad Ali (Zaire) vs prime Jersey Joe Walcott

Maybe that means he just had a lot of fights.

 

Walcott, by many accounts, beat the greatest heavyweight in history, then almost did it again against a top 5 all time heavyweight, while also having two wins over the greatest light heavyweight of all time, one of them being via crushing knockout.

 

The point is that Walcott rematched the guys who beat him (controversially so) and beat them. The rematches came within a couple of months after losing to them, it's not like he aged out either Ray or Maxim before signing the contracts.

Louis not being the same as pre war doesn't change the fact that he was still a complete animal who would crush most heavyweights thrown in the ring with him. We saw what he did to Maurielo, it's not like Walcott was dealing with the 1950s Louis.

Marciano knocked out Layne in short order, a guy who was quite a bit more durable than Norton. If Norton had the ability to back track or cricle around efficiently like Young then maybe he'd give Marciano problems, otherwise I don't see how his crouch and forward brawling style helps him with an inside game power beast like Marciano.

I haven't seen film but i've seen his record, which is essentially a transcript with the word "KO" plastered from top to bottom. I really struggle to see how Norton wins a fight against a guy whose nickname was "Violent". It's just that Norton doesn't have a way to avoid slugfests. He is very good at forcing them, which frustrates boxers who rely on other tricks to get by, but against people who actively welcome them, it's rock paper scissors and Norton is always playing with scissors.

He was very good at dealing with boxers, the Holmes fight is his finest accomplishment but he wasn't a complete fighter the way Walcott was.

No one who ever beat Ali save for Larry was on his level. A guy did not have to be on Ali's level to trouble him. Walcott most certainly passes the quality threshold to give Ali problems, and even Ali at his most boastful 1960s run openly admitted that Jersey Joe was one of the two champs before him who would have bothered him (he hadn't seen Tunney fight until the mid 1970s though).

 

He was pretty consistent from 1945 onwards. Go through the names of contenders he beat. Needing a rematch or two to get through pretty much the entirety of the top ten isn't what being inconsistent is.
Yeah, he lost to Louis and Marciano but if Norton gets credit for the close fights with Holmes and Ali, Walcott should too for his performances against the aforementioned two.
But unlike Norton, Walcott has more going for him, that being a proven ability to take punches better, counter punch more accurately and have faster foot speed. He wasn't as overly specialised in pressuring his opponent the way Norton was, but he was unquestionably a more well rounded fighter.
He also has another thing going for him, more wins over contenders, which of course comes at the cost of more losses.

 

I'm not sure what that point has to do with our discussion.

Louis was well below his best at this point. He retired after the two Walcott fights, he was as close to the 50's Louis as he'd ever be. Picture Holmes of the Spinks fights. Calling him a "complete animal" at this stage is a huge overstatement for mine. He simply wasn't. Mauriello was ordinary, he thought defence was something one built around de house, a real facefirst fighter made to order for Louis. He actually sent Louis reeling with the first right hand he threw. Louis showed he still had big power, but tho he landed some sharp blows he was also a tad sloppy and off with his timing.

What heavyweights do you envision this version of Joe "crushing".

I don't consider 6 rounds to be "short order" and I'd take Layne to get pumped by Norton all night long. I'm not even sure he has a better chin. Would Layne survive 54 rounds with Holmes and Ali without even going down let alone getting KO'd? It's a no from me.

On paper Marciano has the style advantage but i think Norton would be more of an offensive threat than most of what Rocky beat. I'd favor Marciano but it's no lay down mizere. Marciano has some physical disadvantages to overcome before the victory lap.

If beating Norton was as easy as having a scary nickname he would have been a helluva dud. Norton has the higher KO ratio, partly because he was a lot better at winning fights. Duane Bobick's record has KO plastered over it from top to bottom, we all know how that ended up and that was after the great Eddie Futch was extremely confident Bobick would KO Norton. Norton played "rock".

Norton may well have the most underrated offense of all of them. I'm not about to compare the likes of Ray to George Foreman, the only guy who KO'd prime Kenny over a 7 year period.

Norton was quite a complete fighter himself. What sizable high quality speedsters did Walcott track down?

Some of the guys that beat Walcott weren't on his level either.

Over a 14 year period up to and including Zaire the only guys that beat Ali were Frazier and Norton. No-one else even came close (excepting Cooper but he has no place here) so lets not pretend multiple lower level fighters beat or gave Ali problems. You are surely including Jimmy Young and perhaps even Leon Spinks. That would be a bad can of worms to open per Walcott's record.

Regardless of what Ali said i see 60's Ali winning quite wide over Walcott, he's all wrong for him. He might well beat him down inside 15 if he turns it on.

 

You said he "cleared the division" he did not he had some good wins some against historically great Light Heavyweights like Maxim, Johnson, who aren't historically great Heavyweights.

But regardless Walcott was still winning and losing fights and had a 0-4 record against the two best Heavyweights of that era in Marciano, Louis, so that's not "clearing the division".

I'm not saying Walcott shouldn't be credited for giving a good account himself against Marciano, Louis. My issue was that you were implying Walcott cleared the Heavyweight division when he did not far from it.

 

The guy he beat, in the version presented, was nothing near the greatest heavyweight in history. By your logic, we can say the same of Leon Spinks.

You can't get around the fact that the man was a .500 fighter over the final 7 years of his career, when he supposedly had the support and backing he lacked earlier in his career. He is what he is. In this case as in most cases, the numbers do no lie.

 

That Walcott was good enough to avenge losses to ranked fighters

Louis was diminished but not washed up like he was in the 50s. His combinations and crushing power are still on display even up to 1948 when he knocks out Walcott.
Maurielo had never been knocked out until that fight and had very good performances on his record (many fights against ranking or past ranking fighters). Louis taking him out in the first is no mean feat.

The Louis who fought Walcott wasn't quite the 1946 version but he was still an in shape hard punching combination fighter who one would have to avoid for the entire fight, as was proven in the rematch.

Ken Norton.

He survived Charles, Walcott and Satterfield so yeah, he could survive Ali and maybe even Holmes.
Layne at least has 8 rounds against Satterfield and 6 against Marciano to prove he can take a good beating from a big puncher before going out, Norton does not.

Duane never hit Norton. Given Norton's track record it's apparent that if Ray hit him the cards would come tumbling down.

Maxim, Johnson, Charles, Oma. Not the biggest guys around but very fast all of them. Making them bigger isn't going to make them any faster.
Walcott has good performances against pretty much all types of fighters, Norton does not. There isn't the same doubt as to whether or not Walcott can make it against big punchers.

Sure

Yeah, Frazier and Norton, massively outranks them both, as he outranks Walcott.
Walcott proved he was in the class of fighter to give Ali a very hard time. Doesn't mean he would win, it would just be an ordeal for Ali to beat him, as he himself admitted so.

 

From 1945 to 1947 he cleared the top ten, beat almost everyone worth beating before fighting Louis.
Had Louis not fought him, it would have been the worst duck in the history of the sport.
That's what clearing the division is. I don't expect Walcott to do it multiple times over the course of a 23 year long career. He did once and that's good enough.

 

The greatest heavyweight who ever lived is still a massive threat even at diminished capacity.

Sure I can get around that fact. Against the type of competition Walcott was up against most guys wouldn't even have half as many wins as Walcott did.
A very small number of heavyweights have ever been matched as rigourously as Walcott was.

Wins:

Joe Baksi Dec
Lee Oma Dec
Curtis Sheppard KO
Lee Q Murray Disq
Jimmy Bivins Dec
Maxim 2 Dec (rematch wins)
Elmer Ray Dec
Ezzard Charles 2 KO and Dec, rematch
Harold Johnson KO
Omelio Agramonte KO
Joe Louis Dec

Losses:
Joe Louis KO
Ezzard Charles×2 Dec
Marciano×2 KO
Rex Layne Dec
Joey Maxim Dec
Elmer Ray dec

13 wins in 21 fights or 12 wins if you don't count the first Louis fight.
From his losses he avenged Charles, Maxim and Ray, the two competitive fights against Louis, beating Marciano by a wide margin while being 39 years old and getting caught late.
Two genuinely bad losses to Layne and Marciano, the latter coming when Walcott was at the end of a 20 year long professional career.

How many heavyweights have even fought 21 fights against the top ten?

 

This may be too late,but I think I worded it a bit wrong, Ali is a bit more adaptable than Walcott tbh,he always founds a way to win.

 

He didn't though clearing the division means you're the best Heavyweight in the world and Walcott never proved that.

He had some good wins as I said against historically great "Light Heavyweights" and some solid wins over decent Heavyweight contenders.

But he still won and lost fights including getting KO'ed by an aging Joe Louis and his longest win streak was 1 year that's not clearing the division in my book.

I dunno why you replied to this again after 2 weeks has passed let's just stick to the topic at hand which was "Muhammad Ali vs Jersey Joe Walcott" and Ali beats Walcott comprehensively.

 

Walcott Boomaye

 

I certainly wouldn't call that version of Louis a massive threat. He retired immediately following the first bout for good reason. He would never KO a reasonable fighter again in his career. Not only were the press calling him shot but he himself admitted his legs were gone and he couldn't pull the trigger on his right.[/QUOTE]

What other fighter must we do such mental gymnastics to make him seem to be a great? His era sucked to be honest. It was leftovers from pre-war and lightheavies making a late stage cash grab during the post war nadir of the division.

Wins:

Joe Baksi Dec middling at best powderpuff plodder
Lee Oma Dec Walcott achieves what 26 other fighters before him achieved, except 20 of those stopped Oma
Curtis Sheppard KO Walcott achieves what 22 other fighters had been able to do.
Lee Q Murray Disq Murray gets booted for not giving an effort. I would give as much credit as Lewis over McCall, if Murray were actually a champ.
Jimmy Bivins Dec Good win
Maxim 2 Dec (rematch wins) Razor thin wins against a light heavy.
Elmer Ray Dec Good win
Ezzard Charles 2 KO and Dec, rematch Great KO over a lightheavy legend followed by a close win against a guy whose wheels for falling off.
Harold Johnson KO Fishy win over a lightheavy
Omelio Agramonte KO a rote victory over a gate keeper
Joe Louis Dec Shot fighter with 25% of the tools he once had.

Losses:
Joe Louis KO Getting KO'd by a shot fighter
Ezzard Charles×2 Dec Getting schooled by a lightheavy
Marciano×2 KO Speaks for itself
Rex Layne Dec A weak, guileless doughboy who fought on heart alone
Joey Maxim Dec Lightheavy
Elmer Ray dec Tit for Tat

Let's add Johnny Allen, a sub .500 fighter

I see about 3.5 maybe 4 good wins and 9 losses against the guys he should beat to be considered the best. I can't give out the term greatness to someone who was so mercurial in his performance, no matter how fancy a few of his dance moves are.

An overachieving journeyman by any standard.

 

Muhammad Ali would have no need for the "rope-a-dope" tactic against a prime Walcott.
Ali by KO