Foreman vs Walcott

I was illuding to the Ali and Young fights and how we tired during these matches. What's the problem?

 

The Foreman of 1969 thru 1973 really couldn't box for ****...... BUT! He could wallop real good.......... I too see Joe Walcott schooling a very young George Foreman over 10 rds..... However, the older / bigger version of Foreman was more relaxed and better trained....... The 40 year old Foreman parks Walcott like a Cadillac.....

MR.BILL

 

Foreman's problem wasn't lack of skill, but lack of stamina. Foreman was a solid boxer. And his stamina problem is not a problem against Walcott, who would have been damned lucked to see the third round. Lucky as in supernatural intervention lucky. Foreman would have pounded him into the canvas, I don't care how many professional fights Foreman would have under his belt. We're talking about an Olympic champion who went on to obliterate Joe Frazier and Ken Norton.

Walcott was knocked out by an ring-worn Louis and twice by a fighter who would have to have fought in the decades that followed at light heavyweight. I'm talking about Rocky Marciano. Rex Layne pounded out a unanimous decision over Walcott, and Foreman's skill leaps several levels over Layne's. Walcott was thrice outpointed (gifted a win in one of those fights) by a light heavyweight for whom years fighting above his natural weight had taken years off his career. I'm talking about Ezzard Charles.

Walcott lost 7 of his last 14 fights - that's 50%. Back it up and you see he lost 9 of his last 19. The guy was essentially .500 for the six years he was considered in his prime! And he lost many of fights to boxers who would have looked ridiculous standing next to giants like Ron Lyle and Ken Norton, and in fact wouldn't have if they fought in the 1970s. Walcott even lost to a light heavyweight (Joey Maxim) who was hardly a standout. For that matter, one of his biggest wins during this time came against another light heavyweight - who collapsed without being hit (Harold Johnson).

Walcott was a cutie in an era where the division was extraordinarily weak (where a middleweight like Harry Matthews and a light heavyweight like Don Cockell could become ranked), where big hyped names were playing share the title and top contender status while other fighters toiled in obscurity, fighters who would make the next decade a much more high quality and in fact interesting one. I really wish folks would get over this Walcott fetish. I can't think of a top heavyweight in the 1970s he would have schooled.

 

I don't know that I would agree about Ali. Foreman was hammering him for much of the early rounds and hitting him with some of the hardest shots that he had ever landed on a man. Ali spent much of the early half retreating and fighting off the ropes. I wouldn't exactly call that " thoroughly outboxing ".

 

:good one of the hardest punching cuties ever...and the best at heavyweight

 

Old Foreman got outboxed by Tommy Morrison.

 

Yes, he did..... BUT! Tommy Morrison fought / boxed the fight of his life against Foreman in 1993...... Plus, Morrison was in excellent physical shape in the mid 220s..... Morrison never displayed that form in the ring ever again; not even against Razor Ruddock in 1995.... But that's a different story.....

Joe Walcott at 6' tall & 195 solid pounds would box well against the older version of Foreman early on, but I see Foreman finally wearing Walcott down..... Walcott had a great left-hook just like Morrison, but I think Morrison's hook packed more power shot-4-shot.... Morrison did rock Foreman on several occasions in 1993, but he never really hurt, wobbled or even came close to kayoing Foreman...... So, neither could the much smaller Walcott.....

MR.BILL

 

Yes Forman had some bad moments,but if that is the case, we count Walcotts 1 round ko kayo loss to 188 lb Mariciano too.

 

1990s foreman would not win one round against a peak jersey joe walcott. 1990s foreman couldnt even beat alex stewart or axel shulz LOL

 

Walcott was very crafty but his chin is the question ... Young had a great one himself and Foreman almost took him out ... Joe has a good shot ...

 

Mr. Marvel,

your nitpicking walcott's record, hell I could do that with any fighter. When you take a deeper look at walcotts record though, you will find he has one of the better win resumes in heavyweight history. He also cleaned out the heavyweight division 1945-1947

 

This content is protected

 

1. Walcott was erratic, but he defeated all the fighters he fought from 1945 to 1952 with the exception of Louis--and most thought he won the first fight from him--Layne and Marciano. This is a glass half full or half empty situation. Walcott defeated more rated fighters between 1946 and 1952 than Foreman did in his whole 28 year career. According to the BOXING REGISTER, the only fighters rated when Foreman fought them were Chuvalo, Peralta, Frazier, Norton, Ali, Lyle, Frazier, Young, Holyfield, Morrison, and Moorer. Foreman never defeated Ali, Young, Holyfield and Morrison. He had only seven wins against rated fighters and reversed none of his losses.

2. Walcott was an unimposing 51-18-2 for his career. Jimmy Young, who decisively defeated Foreman, was 34-19-2. Won-lost records do not necessarily settle the issue.

3. "Walcott was knocked out by a ring-worn Louis"--Yes, after 26 rounds in which most saw him getting the best of Louis, including a 15 round decision the majority felt was robbery. Foreman, on the other hand, was stopped in 8 rounds by a ring-worn Muhammad Ali, who was only about eight months younger than Louis was for his fight with Walcott in 1947. The difference was that Foreman basically got the crap beat out of him all the way before he went down and out in the eighth. Ali was never off his feet or in any real trouble, unlike Louis.

4. "years fighting above his natural weight had taken years off his career" or maybe fighting 58 rated opponents did that to Ezzard Charles. If he had cut down to Foreman's pace, meaning fighting about 8 to 9 rated opponents over 19 years, Charles might have lasted longer, but who really knows. As for his natural weight, I don't think Charles made lightheavy after 1948, when he made that weight in less than half his fights. Fighters do grow, or do you consider Michael Moorer to have been a lightheavy his entire career?

5. "Maxim was hardly a standout"---Well, he is a Hall of Famer who defeated Robinson, Patterson, Lesnevich, Mills, Bivins, Satterfield, Sheppard, Murphy, Nardico, Andrews, Foxworth, etc. He did do his best fighting at lightheavy, but beat 7 rated heavyweights over his career, the same number as Foreman. He lost a lot, but still has a winning percentage of 71% while Young has one of 61%, and Walcott reversed his disputed loss to Maxim twice. Foreman's loss to Young was not disputed and not reversed.

6. "Division weak with Matthews and Cockell rated"---Nothing like the legendary Joe Roman or Chuck Wepner rated in the Foreman era, an era which saw not only Roman and Wepner bouying the heavyweight ratings, but also such standouts as Terry Daniels and Jean-Pierre Coopman gracing the championship ring with their unforgettable talents. And, of course, there was that great champion Leon Spinks, but let's not go there.

7. "lost to men who would have looked ridiculous standing next to giants such as Lyle and Norton"--and these men looked equally ridiculous standing next to giants such as Pat Comiskey, Harry Bobo, Lee Q Murray, Lem Franklin, etc, from the forties. They beat them anyway. Are we going to get the big heavyweights always beat little heavyweights argument despite the manifest historical evidence that this has not been the general rule.