Walcott: the most skilled HW ever?

Walcott Charles and Holmes are my 2 favorites as far as technically sound HW's. I cant pick who's the most proficiant, but out of the 3 I enjoy watching Holmes and Walcott the most. Holmes for his jab which I never get tired of watching.Walcott for having the Koolest footwork ever.

 

Sorry should read 3 favorites.

 

Shows your limited knowledge. Take your head out of Gene Tunney's ass for a second and pay attention.

A. He did get beyond Joey Maxim(A hall of famer btw). He went 2-1 against him, and realistically should have gone 3-0 against him. The Associate Press scored Walcott-Maxim I 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even for Walcott. The Crowd heavily booed the decision.

B. Elmer Ray did not "outbox" Walcott. Ray was not a boxer. He was a long armed swarmer-puncher. He beat Walcott by skillfully and powerfully swarming all over him. Even still, it was a very close fight(which was avenged by walcott soundly outboxing, and knocking ray down 3x in 1947). Herbert Goldman rates Elmer Ray # 17 heavyweight of all time, so losing to the # 1 heavyweight contender in the world, whom also rates well historically, is not exactly embarrasing.

Walcott went 2-1 in his trilogy with Elmer Ray


So apparently, you decided to use the Maxim and Ray fights against Walcott, despite Walcott winning trilogies with BOTH of them.

 

Oh, I've heard the rationalizations before, have plenty of footage of Walcott.

Answer me this... How many fights would Maxim need against Lewis, Foreman, Tyson, Frazier, Holmes to pull out a single victory. Would he win one fight in a three fights series against any of these guys?


I know about Elmer Ray, also, and his style. I hope your patronizing attitude bolsters some inner feelings of inadequacy for you because it is out of place here. My comment of Ray winning a decision over him was purposely constructed because Ray did not KO him but rather beat him to the decision, in a sense "outboxed" him. My point is that some only see fancy (and often useless) tap dancing and shoulder rolls executed out of punching range as "boxing"... I'll take the guy getting his hand raised at the end as proof of the better boxing on that day.

 

No he wouldn't...but

Answer me this...did Maxim deserve the decision against Walcott? Associate Press scored it 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even for Walcott. The crowd booed heavily. Seems like a highway robbery to me. Series should have been 3-0 for Walcott.

I don't know why your attacking Maxim here. He was a hall of fame fighter, Top ranked heavyweight Contender, A very good technical boxer with a nice jab, granite chin, and ackward style...he could make anyone look bad.


Just to let you know...Maxim was the SEVENTH top 10 Ring Magazine heavyweight contender Walcott faced in the past year! SEVENTH! How many heavyweight champions in history fought seven ring magazine top 10 contenders in one year alone? Perhaps, Walcott was simply fighting a grueling schedule and ran into a top fighter(maxim) who presented a difficult styles matchup for him?

 

In da corner to the right, wearing da pink shorts and no shoes ya have Seamus, and in da corner to da left ya need no introduction to da diamond wearin dog, McGrainer. Ok folks, want to place yer bets on dis one before they come out holding hands?

 

I agree with most of what Seamus has written on this thread.
Walcott was a shifty, skillful fighter with good technique and some cute moves, but people get carried away.
If he was a good as people say he wouldn't have let Elmer Ray, who Suzie Q says was "not a boxer" win the larger share of the fight from him.
If he was a good as people say he wouldn't have let the fairly inexperienced and fairly basic Rex Layne do that to him either.
You'd probably expect him to skillfully avoid getting KO'd in a rematch with a faded Joe Louis too, seeing as he'd allegedly outboxed him in the first fight ... if he was as good as they say.

Seeing as Walcott also had good KO power and a reasonably good chin, if his skill was really as highly developed and rounded as people are claiming then it would be nigh on impossible for a Rex Layne to beat him, methinks.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJP3UXzLPTg[/ame]

 

Some skills go unnoticed. The kind Archie Moore employed -- or Bernard Hopkins. People ask -- why is his opponent suddenly boxing so poorly?

Sometimes people confuse athleticism with skill. Marciano seems crude, Jermain Taylor smooth and natural. Marciano had a unique but effective skillset that suited his strenghts, while Taylor did not augment his given attributes much at all.

Jersey Joe Walcott coupled athleticism with a sneaky disposition and a flair for the dramatic, making him the most flashy heavyweight to ever live. I find him delicious. You can miss Joe Louis luring his man in, you can miss Duran feinting with his feet, you can miss Hopkins staying outside of his man's lead foot, but it is virtually impossible to miss the pretty thing that Walcott just did. He fights like he knows he's being filmed.

He knows how to make an impression, this man. Most skilled? Nah.

 

Wow

 

Rex Layne was pretty ****in good in his prime. He showed he was capable of beating Ezzard Charles too. Watch his fight with Satterfield, Layne showed he had no quit in him. Many spoke very highly of Layne up until the Marciano-Layne fight. If Walcott didn't come into the fight in optimum shape, it's easy to see why a young ranked dangerous workhorse contender upset him.

If Lennox was as good as people say he is, then it would be nigh on impossible for a Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall to beat him, methinks.

Walcott beat Elmer Ray 2 out of 3 times. Besides, Elmer Ray is one of the better contenders in history never to win a title. He also beat a prime Ezzard Charles. Ray is arguably a top 25 heavyweight of all time. Is it that much of a shame to drop 1 out of 3 fights to him? I can think of many heavyweight champions who would lose 2 out of 3 to Ray.

Layne was a well known early bloomer. He is also quite a bit better than you imply. Here is what ESB's John Garfield had to say about Layne.


"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down. But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of **** and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."

 

So it took 13 and 26 rounds for the two greatest finishers of all time to finally catch up to him and you call that "easy"?

 

Check this out fight fans...Good Glimpse to see how Walcott would work effectively vs Modern SuperHeavyweights

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmNZZXLMng[/ame]