Foreman vs Walcott

True, although Charles was much faster than Foreman. Louis, on the other hand, was deceptively passive- he could lead you to be more aggressive than was wise against such a perfect puncher. Walcott was well past his best by the time he fought Marciano; I think it's a bit unfair to judge Walcott on the basis of his fights with Marciano, especially if we're not judging Foreman on the basis of his second career.

 

On a sidenote,


Walcott impressed against big men during his best years. Walcott outfought top contender 6'3 207lb Lee Q Murray, who Ray Arcel called the best puncher of the era besides louis befuddling murray to the point where he stopped trying.... He whipped 6'2 218lb Joe Baksi when baksi was being talked about the first title opponent for louis upon his return from War, Walcott obviousely did very well against 6'2 214lb Joe Louis including a Masterclass performance in first fight which he deserved to win, Demolished 6'3 208lb Ollie Tandberg a very highly regarded european because of his size and recent win over baksi, then Chopped down the Big Tree 6'5 216lb Johnny Skhor in one round with one devastating sneaky right hand, and on film walcott can be seen outboxing 6'6 220lb undefeated European Champion Hein Ten Hoff a skilled giant who walcott took apart(I suggest purchasing this film)....

 

huh? I thought 2 out of 3 of walcotts finest performances came against charles in july 51 and marciano in sept 52(the other one louis dec 47 where walcott looks spectacular). what makes you say walcott was well past his best? Walcott was champion and had added a more aggresive punching output to his slick style that IMO made him a tougher fighter to beat. walcott also looks great on film vs Hoff in 1950.

 

I think the 2 Louis fights...The Charles KO...and Marciano 1 were great fights for Walcott...I met him in the 70's the guy was a beast...hands, head thick neck, scary looking dude....but a Gent...he said Louis was a dangerous puncher and Marciano a brutal relentless puncher...he felt he would have done well in the 70's

 

Walcott certainly would have done very well in the 70s. Bummy, interesting you mention his hands size. My Grandfather met Walcott in 55, and said Walcotts hands were unbelievably huge for a man his size, my grandad was 6'0 200lb but he said hed never seen bigger hands than walcott.

 

He was still an extremely good boxer, but he wasn't the man he was against Louis. Charles was in the same bout of being a shadow of his former self (but what an intimidating shadow!) and against Marciano I think it was more the case that Walcott's veteran moves allowed him to be impressive against a Marciano who was just entering into his period of dominance. In short, I'm not saying that Walcott was shot, I'm saying that he had seen better days.

 

I never cared for James Young all that much, either..... Yes, he could box very well; but his style and power sucked....

Now we got the new kid Edward Chambers as the new 'Young' of 2009 / '10....... YAWN!!

Joe Walcott was indeed great....... I also have stated for yrs that Walcott was Joe Louis' BEST title challenger from 1937 thru 1949........ I love Louis and his title reign, but at least 18 of them 25 defenses were against nondescript opponents of limited ability.....

MR.BILL:yep:bbb

 

I'm going to take pre Ali Foreman to stop Walcott. There would be nights where George probably wouldn't catch him, but i'll flip the coin that he does in a one off. Tight match this one.

 

Yes. I think he would.

 

same with Holmes,And Ali...thing with Louis and Ali is that they tried to fight the best of there time

 

Ali faced much better heavies than louis or marciano did unless we're including great LIGHT heavies.

 

Foreman's going to outwork Walcott and he's going to land, especially as Walcott could get lazy or switch off, and when he does land Walcott won't take Foreman's best shot.

Taking 1 of Foreman's worse performances does not mean he loses to every single boxer. And can Walcott can move and fight for the duration as much as Young did because Walcott could be lazy and Walcott drops his hands and shoulder rolls.

1 things for sure Walcott drops his hands and try's to roll hes going to ship a few of a barrage of punches and the punches will keep coming. Whats more is Foreman's height and reach means he'll batter Walcott back from range

 

Walcott during his best years did extremley well against big heavyweights. now granted none of the big fighters(with the exception of 6'2 214lb louis) were anywhere near as good as foreman, but it gives you an idea of walcott ability to deal with height and reach. I suggest watching walcott vs Hoff. Hoff is 6'6 84" reach, there is film and I think walcott does an outstanding job negating hoffs reach and height......as does walcott in Louis I

 

Foreman beats Walcott.

I like Joe.

I do.

But he ain't beating Big george. You could argue that Ken Norton has a better chin than Jersey Joe Walcott and he got blasted out in 2 rounds. Walcott would get over powered. He can't stay away from a 1973-1974 George for 12-15 rounds because it wouldn't last that long. Foreman at 6'4, 217-227 and 81 inch reach would be too much to over come (don't bring up lesser fighters of that size that fought Joe to validate Walcott, they ain't George).

George still had Young out on his feet several times in their fight. As someone said, Young gave a past prime Ali hell and a good Ken Norton. Walcott never fought a guy on the level of Ali or Norton in my opinion (the Joe Louis he fought was a shadow of the pre WWII version and still KO'd him in the rematch, and still got KO'd twice by Marciano and took FIVE bites at the cherry before winning the title at 37).

Put a 6'3, 209-220 pound chiselled Norton in the 50's. Even a 6'2" 210 pound Young would look like a monster compared Marciano, Patterson, Charles and to the 195 pound 6 foot Walcott.

I just don't think Jersey Joe could win. Great fighter though.

 

Basicly Walcott would be a dangerous proposition for any heavyweight in history.

Forgett the mythical punchers chance a master boxer like Walcott has a chance against anybody.

I think that Foreman would be at more of a stylistic disadvantage against Walcott than most all time greats.

He would basicaly have to get Walcott out of there in the first half of the fight or he would be screwed. Once it got past this point the only diference between Walcott and Young is that Walcott would not alow Foreman the luxury of finishing the fight on his feet.

Of course Foreman does theoreticaly have the tools to finish Walcott if he catches him in the earlier rounds.