Excellent stuff, thank you. I always felt like - Walcott took this murderous shellacking in the first fight inspite of the great first round he had. Now, he's had a horrible first round and he knows what's coming. He was old, he'd had a tough career, I could definitely see him saying, "no thanks" and understand that, to a degree. Anyway or no, on the other hand, with the brutal KO he suffered at Marciano's hands, it seems that the othe explanation - Walcott's - is reasonable too. Maybe Rocky KO'd him twice in the first fight, in a way.
Very interesting stuff. I have similair thoughts to yourself as regards their placings but I always felt it was close and clear. Might be worth another look.
Well good luck with that. As for Walcott, we'll just have to agree to disagree for the moment - I think 12 is a good bit to high and you think 20ish is to low. 18-23 would be my range for Walcott by the way, with part of what anchor's him there my feeling that he should be below Schmeling.
Watching his fights will Louis, Charles and Marciano u can see how skilled the man was. Smart with very deceptive power and speed. He got a little too cute at times especially against Louis in the rematch but imo was robbed in the first fight. His title winning hook on charles in one of the best punches in history as u can see below :yep
Mcgrain do you give holyfield credit for earning a draw vs a prime lennox lewis? since 2 of the 3 judges agreed it was a draw? because that decision certainly wasnt any worse than walcott-louis I
I've already answered the exact point in discussion with Minotauro. I don't have the whole Louis-Walcott fight on film. What I have leads me to score it close but clear to Walcott. But I don't use my cards over the judges cards without very serious cause. These guys aren't in there to impress me but scoring judges. The press had it around 2/3 for Walcott as I understand it. So around 30-35% of the press have it for Louis. 2/3 judges have it for Louis (if I remember rightly both judges score for Louis, the referee scores for Walcott?). There isn't enough there for me to "reverse" the verdict, IMO. Lewis-Holyfield I, I have on tape (Old vcr). I've seen it many times, scored it a couple (it's a boring fight - would trade it for the Louis-Walcott film any day) of times. I think it was a robbery. I think it was a robbery, from what I saw. No way can you produces 1/3 ringside reporters that call that for Holyfield. Anyway or no, to answer the quesiton, I do give Holyfield some credit - I think he deliberately set out to make the rounds slow and muzzy, hard to score. He reaped the benifits of that, although they were illicit.
You must understand, walcott at the time was not a fan favorite. his manager was disliked, no one wanted walcott to win. the crowd and press were heavily pro joe louis crowd....YET most of them still found walcott to be the clear winner. I suspect those who voted for joe louis did it from there hearts and not there heads. walcott outboxed louis, he knocked him down twice, and outsmarted him all night. After the fight, joe louis walked up to walcott and said "im sorry joe" when asked about referee ruby goldsteins pro walcott scorecard, louis replied "i know rube, he calls em like he sees em" john garfield was LIVE AT RINGSIDE, hes a huge joe louis fan and even he admitted walcott clearly won
But John Garfield isn't the man to decree my judgement. As to the 1/3 of the press and 2/3 judges picking Louis over Walcott because of how they feel in their hearts,that is speculation. I don't deny that the combination of - Highlights favouring Walcott Press favouriting Walcott Referee favouring Walcott Is a persuasive mix, but i'm not going to overturn the judges decision, start saying to people, "oh Walcott beat Louis". Maybe Louis got a gift - I think it's more likely that he shaded a close fight that most people had going the other way. You feel otherwise, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think. Based on what we have do you think he was better in Louis I than Marciano I?
I often joke about Jersey to get a rise out of people, but all kidding asside, he was a truly great champion and deserves all the respect in the world for the tremendous efforts he gave both in victory and defeat. He gave us some of the most entertaining fights of all time in the first Marciano match as well as in his battles with Joe Louis. I have never seen any of his bouts with Ezzard Charles, and some say they were slow at times, but nevertheless, they were fights of historical importance. Arnold Cream's story is one boxing's more fascinating tales. A working man with hungry children who earned his keep working full time in a factory while training under less favorable conditions at night or whenever he could find the time. Much like James Braddock, he often fought injured, malnurished or on short notice. He had a mixed bag of results against the very best and worst of the division, but at the end emerged as a true champion.
When I watch or read about some of Walcott's great late efforts in life, I often wonder if he might have won more of his earlier matches, with the improved training and managerial conditions that he had at his disposal later. Surely, he would have had my vote to beat Abe Simon had circumstances been different at the time.
Walcott also claimed that he was waiting for his corner to tell him when to get up, and since his corner's count was a split second later than the ref's count, they told him to get up too late. Strange if true, since the ref's count is the only one he should have been paying atention to.
My gut feel is that Walcott could have gotten up. He was hurt and dazed for a little while by the punch but he seemed lucid enough taking the count. Like you, I also believe that the knockdown brought back haunting memories of the first fight, and that Joe sitting there taking the count, basically made up his mind it just wasn't worth it to go through it all again - especially since Marciano could have only been more formidable than he was in the first fight. (More experienced, more confident)
Walcott had some bad lossesb but at his best he was "damn good". Good enough to be in the top 10 HWs of all time? I am afraid not. 15 or slightly below would be a fair enough estimate IMO. He was better than Patterson and at his best would have given Dempsey and Holyfield a very good fight, though I rate both of them higher. Liston and Foreman would have been more difficult. PrimeTyson, I feel, would have been a bad match-up for Jersey Joe. In his own era he was definitely one of the best HWs. He was better as a HW than Bivins, Marshall and Moore and just about the equal of Charles. p4p top 100 he was not. But that is not to belittle Jersey Joe, in any way.