Who, since Jersey Joe Walcott's retirement, fought in a similar way?

What are you countering?

 

Stylistic dead ends are pretty rare though...truly world class fighters, champions, without successful emulators are really very rare on a long enough timeline. Walcott hasn't been active in decades which means, probably, he's an anomaly. That type of fighter interests me.

 

Canzoneri was way better at it; but the both seemed to riff a bit to me, allowing that Canzoneri had so much more experience. Maybe it became more a learned behaviour for him but do you think they boxed with similar styles at all?

 

He attacked the space, tried to induce mistakes but then deployed his offence as per plan regardless if the opponent threw, didn't throw, missed, or hit him. I don't think that's counterpunching at all. He'd be more active if his opponent didn't throw.

If Tyson is to be considered "a counter puncher" because he sometimes counter punches, all fighters are counter punchers and the phrase stops being useful. Which maybe it isn't. I understand something by it though.

 

Lots of leans and vapours, too. I guess the argument about levels is valid but Naz would be top 30 at his poundage all time for me, lots of contenders tanned, he's a very decent fighter, he's in these chats for me. I think he kind of fumbled his way down the same dark alleys as Canzoneri in terms of style. Closest, anyway.

 

We have, but we've seen him do exactly the same moves - actually called by the corner in his prime - regardless. So if there's no throw, he's doing that combo form that position, if there is a throw, he's doing that that punch form that position, if he gets hit, he's doing that throw form that position. That's not a counter-puncher for me. That's a swarmer deploying his attack while taking evasive maneuvers. He did sometimes counter punches though. Same as all boxers.

 

Definitely is. Guys who are top fifty all time for a given division...there's so little between them. I will say the "very elite" sometimes enjoy a bigger advantage, whether that's a top two (heavy) or a top 10 at lightweight, sometimes are a meaningful step ahead.

 

I'd say, then, that most of the people who have responded this afternoon agree that there is no really good example of a guy that fights like Walcott.

Next question is, why? Why has nobody successfully recreated what he did and why was able to do something that nobody has managed to do since? And last, the more minor question - do you think this is why people rate him so highly, when they do? "Never seen anything like it"?