Could Bonavena Have Beat Walcott Of 1952?

Yep, hard to argue with your line, on board, Walcott comes out on top.
stay safe buddy.

 

I wouldn’t have favored Bonavena. Marciano tried to bulldoze Walcott all night long and was behind going into that 13th round. Oscar would be a very tough fight but I see Jersey winning it

 

Bonavena one of the worst contenders of his era??? The guy was a consistently tough night for everyone he fought. He was bigger, tougher, stronger, and more durable than Layne and I would add that he was also a lot more tricky, awkward and unpredictable. The reason Walcott gets such short shrift is because he was maddeningly inconsistent. Bonavena has a better record and more KOs despite fighting in a tougher era than both Layne and Walcott. I see no reason to not give Bonavena at least a 50/50 chance and I would favor him. Im not sure why people hold the Folley loss against him as some sort of comparator for how Walcott would do against a prime Bonavena. When Bonavena lost to Folley it was his NINTH fight. It was Folley's SEVENTY-NINTH... He literally had ten times as many fights as Bonavena. How many fighters have the balls to even attempt that much less hang in there for 10 rounds? Folley was 79-11-6 and a contender for the better part of a decade. Walcott was 49-20-1 in a relatively post WW2 depleted era in which it took him 5 bites at the apple before he won the title. He was 2-6 in title fights and one could argue that he was actually 1-7. His lone win came against a natural light heavyweight in their third fight. The law of averages would dictate that it wasnt some marvelous unbelievable feat that Walcott, given so many shots at the title, might eventually win one despite being considered an aging and relatively average fighter. Theres a reason he was considered the second Cinderella Man of the ring and it wasnt because he was this incredible fighter who was winning every time out. In fact, I would submit that Bonavena was only defeated by fighters who were better than Walcott barring the two controversial DQ losses on his record one of which was avenged twice. Walcott on the other hand lost at every point in his career to fighters who werent as good as Bonavena. I stick with what I said 2 years ago on this very thread.

 

Didn’t mention Folley at all. I can watch film and see one isn’t like the other. Bonavena was consistent and hung in but he wasn’t special. He boxed like he walked in off the street. Lyle was the same. That light heavyweight that beat Walcott would spank Bonavena too. Walcotts special night with Marciano is worth more then anything Bonavena accomplished even as a losing effort.

 

Bonavena's three losing efforts against Patterson, Frazier 1, and Ali (in which you can argue he wasnt behind in any of those fights and deserved two of them) were all better than Walcott losing to Marciano. Running Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time and actual true heavyweight at 6'3" 214 pounds, ragged is a lot more impressive than Walcott getting knocked out by a 5'10 185 pound face first slugger.

 

Bonavena losing to Patterson was more impressive than Walcott against Marciano? I just watched the fight and couldn't disagree more. Patterson was 37, and hadn't beaten a ranked fighter since Henry Cooper six years earlier (if Cooper was ranked).

Bonavena was wild, missing most of his punches and often by wide margins. He had an odd style. He was often not aggressively taking it to his opponent, but seemed to be relying on counterpunching. He reminds me quite a bit of Uzcudun and Godoy. Tough men who are going to be there but with so-so offensive capabilities and thus likely to lose more often than not, especially to a good boxer.

Patterson looked to me to have gone back a lot, especially in punching power. He dawdled quite a bit as usual, but Bonavena matched him in dawdling. Patterson landed about 90% of the clean punches when he did let his hands go.

There was a KD by Bonavena in the fourth, one of the more unimpressive KD's I have seen. There was a left hook, but Patterson appeared to have taken it okay before slipping as he moved away. I might have called it a slip, but the ref said a KD, so I gave this round to Bonavena. Otherwise it was Patterson's round.

I had the fight close through 8, but if I had to pick a winner at that point, I would have given Patterson the slight edge. Patterson dominated the last two rounds to win clearly in my judgment.

This is another of those fights some say was a robbery, but when I watch the film I find myself agreeing with the verdict, which was unanimous.

*As for Bonavena running Ali ragged, Ali was well ahead on points before he stopped Bonavena in the last round. Ali had only fought 3 rounds in the last 3 and 1/2 years. He still won easily. Tommy Farr did better against an active Louis than Bonavena did against a rusty Ali.

**after watching Bonavena against Patterson, I think Walcott handles him easily. Bonavena's passive style would not work against Walcott at all. Layne beat Walcott by taking it to him and getting off first. That wasn't Oscar's style and I don't see him winning with a counterpunching strategy against a sharpie like Walcott.

 

Frazier was matched tough in the 1st Bonavena fight.
Ali looked awful against Oscar imo.Having said that I dont think either the 1st Frazier or the Ali fight were especially close.The Patterson bout from what I remember was closer imo.

 

Well, firstly. JJW was up against a tougher fight then a relative novice in Frazier. Frazier had about 14 fights? Oscar had 24-26? or something and he dropped Frazier early, twice? then Joe outworked him all night long from what I remember but it doesn't matter. Rocky was also a harder opponent then a guy I know this forum would think Oscar could beat if they never fought 37-38 year old, fragile Patterson who beat him just fine by UD. The Ali fight wasn't close, Ali didn't come out of second gear, I made a joke thread about that very fight and you'll see just how unanimous people think he was dominated, Not to open another can of worms but Ali is as overrated as they come and looked just terrible that fight by no fault of Bonavena's either. Calling Marciano nothing more then a "Face first slugger" should disqualify your opinion on anything within the ring, it makes it worse coming from someone who is an author on the business. Your championing a real face first slugger in Oscar over a guy who took an ATG prime champion to the edge.

 

Huh, You replied quick. I deleted that post. It's not unsimilar to the one I just posted anyway.

 

You'd remember better then me. I don't watch uncoordinated slugs like Bonavena if I can help it. I really don't watch HWs anymore to be honest, just here and there they've slipped through the cracks.

 

Bonavena has a slim sluggers' chance.
But JJW has the upper hand and should outbox and outpunch Bonavena for a UD.