Joe Walcott vs Zora Folley, Clevelend Williams and Eddie Machen

I will elaborate further later; but IMO my man Jersey Joe in his best version beats all of them.

Also in his subpar version loses to all of them...

 

Assuming every man is at his best Joe wins. Had he fought all of them in the course of his career he may have dropped one and avenged it but he was the better fighter when he was peak.

 

He ranks far ahead of these guy's in boxing simulation tests... Like most people they can spring an upset on enough simulation's but the gap is rather significant.

 

0-3. Could luck in to winning one but shouldn't be favored or considered 50/50 in any of them.

 

I'd make him favourite over all of them individually ,but realistically he would probably lose at least one,he was never the most consistent of fighters.

 

Joes real prime would have been in the late thirties early forties. He was about same age as Louis but unlike Louis who got lucky for a few reasons Walcott was like most black fighters in heavier classes shut out of title shot and thus not being picked up by big time managers. After the war when things changed and he had by then a real management he still had enough physically left to be at the top of what was around. The 3 proposed opponents were part of the first wave to come up after the war so they were brought along seriously from the beginning and reached their full potentials during their their youthful physical peaks. The 47 Walcott might have outmaneuvered Williams but think Machen and Folley can best him after hard fought battles.

 

Considering Walcott lost one out of three everytime he stepped in the ring, it's highly doubtful he runs a clean sweep.

 

Mcvey and Swag have made the best point, Walcott was to inconsistent to win all 3

 

On his best day he was better than any, as he was a tricky boxer with lots of unique and clever moves, and a big puncher, while the rest of those guys were easier to pigeonhole.

However, Walcott blew hot and cold, so each would also have a chance against him.

 

He's better than them all but he would almost certainly lose along the way.

 

Very hard to say when Walcott was in his prime. For the bulk of his career he held down a full time job to feed his family of eight. He went into bouts poorly trained and unfed.

 

Well, if we are realistic and send a half-starved, badly trained, exhausted Jersey Joe to face those contenders, then most probably he loses to everyone.

But a properly feed, trained and rested Jersey Joe is more than game for anybody.

 

Yeah, Walcott's career is a triumph and a tragedy at the same time.

A tragedy because the missed opportunities due to the hardships he faced. But also a triumph; because what he accomplished even with all the odds stacked against him.

 

Guys guys the question is at their peaks. That’s not Walcott was up and down it’s him at his best Machen and the others at their best. Machen and Folley and Liston kicked the asses of all the old 50s guys. 47 Walcott that probably beat an old Louis is at their level but not better then them at their peaks.