Jersey Joe Walcott vs David Tua

Byrd was a lot younger than Walcott and faster ... Joe was absolutely tricky as hell and could punch far more but Tua could handle his power ... Joe would have to be able to move for 12 rounds or so and not just spirts ... Tua could;d be outboxed by a jab alone but Joe only had a 74" reach so needed his whole game ... interesting fight ..

 

Yes, but this is head to head with a spitting fire David Tua, who was not effected by it. Also, Louis, like Dempsey, had the soft alternatives being at the top during his hiatus, and certainly indulged in them, which likely hastened his decline.

Walcott's great achievement was perseverance. When the tide of talent receded, he still remained but now he was above water.

 

I don’t think Byrd was as smart as Walcott however…

 

Tua brutal KO, steroids diff

Tua is ****ing 225 with a high octane workrate and will keep walking forward against Walcott and eventually make him wilt. Walcott needs 2 years of blasting HGH and Test E to compete. Tua wont respect his power and is gonna get tossed around in any clinch.

Stop making matchups like this.

 

Youre mistaken, boxing actually had more athletes aspiring towards in in post ww2 era than it did in the 90s when Tua was active

The growing environment also made for some gritty SOBs

Tua would get violated in the 1940s because his balls would shrivel from lack of substance assistance; he would go hypogonadal and never fight lol.

 

Smart enough not get beaten every third time he stepped through the ropes.

 

No, Im totally correct. You had a bunch of dudes with no tread on the tires hanging on, a crew of lightheavies smelling money and blood in the water rising up, and the assorted white dopes. A wretched era as far as talent.

 

We have done this before “Jimmy Young”

 

Yeah, and I remember being right last time, too.

 

Pffft “Jimmy Young” x2

 

Are you relying on any sources for the idea that WW2 and the immediate aftermath hit the heavyweight division's talent pool?

Or are you looking at the lightheavies, older guys, etc. competing and drawing your own conclusion that WW2 must have done it?

 

@Seamus answer this or it’s gulag for you

 

I am the source. My hypothesis is proven in the facts, the rankings, the results, the lack of new talent rising, the poor showing of older fighters on film. Somewhere around 20 million fighting age males died in that war, many multiples more were permanently injured, many more than that were drawn away from potential sporting careers by obligations of war industry, rebuilding, taking care of orphans, rationing, being refugees, etc... It's a simple fact the talent pool dried up. We got the hangers-on from the previous generation and those lucky enough to slip between the cracks of misfortune.

 

You trolling? Because honestly this is BS if not, Tua is on the verge of “bad” for a contender Walcott is smarter then a lot of our little weight champions today.

 

The issue I have with WW2 as the main cause is that most of the relevant devastation happened in mainland Europe. The United States suffered a lot of casualties, too, but came off relatively well. And it was the US, and not Europe, that was the center of gravity for world boxing at that time.

If you're looking for causes of the slow turnover in talent for the 50s division, the postwar prosperity in the US is at least as good a candidate. You don't get the flood of desperate talent going into boxing due to the Depression. The best guys of the past era were better on average to what was offered by way of new guys, so they stick around longer.