Foreman vs Walcott

SUZIEQ49.

Because he beat charles again in IV doesn't mean he was not past his prime.

Walcott was not prime v Marciano. People say that to overrate Rock even more. I guess you will claim Archie Moore was prime v Rock.

Charles himself was past his prime. Charles was not the fighter he was in the previous bouts, plus Charles was a blown-up fighter to start with.

"Walcott looked fabulaous in Charles III". SO? That doesn't not mean he was not passed it by Charles IV. FINALLY WINNING THE TITLE TOOK THE EDGE OFF JOE IN CHARLES IV.

Tyson looked fabulous before fighting Douglas. Lewis looked fabulous before fighting Rahman etc.

And no Janitor. Maxim does not have a chance of beating Foreman.

When he fought Marciano, Jersey even admitted he took Rock lightly, claiming Rock had no skill and was a amateur before the fight. Look how Joe looked in round 1 v Rock, he tried to kill Rock in 1 round because he fought he could. That's not his style.

 

Plus Janitor.

"Foreman would not be able to match skill, speed, expierience and craftiness with Jersey Joe."

Are you comparing FOREMAN to Marciano?

"Skill, speed, experience or craftiness".

Foreman does not need those atributes to beat Jersey Joe in the early rounds. Foreman is a huge guy with power in both fists, nobody walcott has fought compares to Foreman. Walcott is not a durable as Muhammad Ali, or even Jimmy Young (both fighters took punishment). To beat George you have to take some punishment at some point, and Joe can't v Foreman.

 

You never say never in this game.

All common sense would have told you that Mike Tyson would beat James Douglas but he didnt.

Boxing is all about upsets and asumptions are made to be overturned.

 

People should read the newspaper accounts of the fourth Walcott-Charles fight. Charles won that fight according to every ringside writer polled by the New York Times, which had Charles winning eleven rounds and drawing in two.

The fact is that Charles was a lot better than Walcott. Charles was flat for III, got careless and Walcott landed the perfect shot.

 

I think it is verry hard to argue for a big qualatative diference between Walcott and Charles at heavyweight either way.

They split a series with eachother.

They even split series with some of the same comon oponents.

 

bias bias and more bias. I have read other reports of the fight. Charles lead early, then after the 11th back off and Walcotts aggresion in the late rounds won him the fight. It was a difficult fight to score really. both fighters knew eachothers styles so well by now. I really do believe Walcott was the better heavyweight than charles.

Disagree. Walcott beat better opposition at heavyweight than charles did, and they split the series. Louis always said Walcott was better than charles. Marciano said his toughest fight was Walcott I.

charles didnt get careless, walcott just trapped him with a thing of art.

 

I forgot to add I believe Walcotts heavvyweight run 1945-1947 where he cleaned out the division is IMO more impressive than charles heavyweight title reign

 

I am not buying this at all. the newspaper articles I have read suggested walcott became more motivated and confident AFTER he won the heavyweight title.

actually that is part of walcotts style. walcott was a boxer and a puncher. walcott was a tremendous puncher when he wanted too be. Some believe walcotts best performances came in charles III and marciano I where he fought the exact same aggresive counterpuncher fight. Had Walcott stayed aggresive vs louis in the first fight, the judges would have been less likely to hand the decision to louis.

Actually I am a # 1 jersey joe walcott fan. he is my # 1 favorite fighter. I do more research on him than any fighter and I truelly believe walcotts prime years were 1947-1952.

when you you think walcotts prime was?

 

RING MAGAZINE polled all 41 writers at ringside. The poll was 24 for Charles and 17 for Walcott.

RING MAGAZINE, August, 1952. Page 4.

Just as an aside, the cover price for this issue was 25 cents.

By the way, THE RING listed the names of the writers and their round scores. They were all over the place. Three NY Times writers were polled. Arthur Daley had it 11-4 for Charles. James Dawson had it 9-6 for Charles. But Joe Nichols had it 13-2 for Walcott. Go figure.

 

1945 Walcott met up with felix bocchicio. He started to become nourished and healthy for the first time. he put on some muscle. He started to get world class training for once. He beat some good fighters this year but was still developing

1946 Walcott started to come into his own with his style. Developed some amazinlgly slick moves and mastered his walcott waltz. Beat alot of top rated fighters this year. still though, hadnt fully developed his full punching skills yet. pre prime

1947-1948 I think this is where he may have hit his peak in Dec 1947, where he masterfully outboxed louis and outsmarted him. still, he could have been more aggresive with his fists

1949-1950 Started to really develop punching skills, he knocked out some good fighters during these years and some big men. He kept his slick walcott waltz and added on more punching prowess to it

1951-1952 completley developed his punching skills onto his already slick boxing style. added a more aggresive nature. argueably became better fighter

 

I would argue the 1947 version of Louis Walcott faced was better than the 1973 Ali foreman faced. Louis was fresh from boxing hundreds of exhibitions during the war and looked spectacular knocking out mauriello and conn one year earlier. Louis in 1947 still had fast hands, great combinations, lots of power, snapping jab, and filled in nicely to 213lb frame.

Even in 1946 Louis is way more accurate. Watch the tape. Tape dont lie.

Foreman Aint that good. Young beat the crap out of him.

Eh, Not really

195lb Gregorio Peralta, and Jimmy Young in the 7th round

Actually when his opponent got in range Walcotts hand always came up. But he was so good at doing Walcott Waltz, and Shoulder Rolls and tricky footwork no one could hit him. Walcotts head movement was also phenominal. and most importantly, walcotts defense got better when he was trapped on ropes. Watch round 10 vs Marciano.

Foreman could not outjab walcott, Walcott could easily slip foremans jab with his head movement and walcott fired triple jab combos including a nice feint jab to the body which would have tricked foreman down to his feels. Outwork him? not after round 6. Even if he cut off the corners, there was no one more intelligent in the ring than walcott. he would have a few tricks of his own for george. foreman would walk right into a walcott counter trap.

I dont see what strength has to do with it, but Walcott was extremley strong. Willie Reddish Called Sonny Liston and Joe Walcott the two strongest fighters hes ever seen.

As for Height and Reach, they may be a factor but not a big one, as during walcotts best years he did very well vs taller bigger men including Louis who was 6'2 214lb

 

As Louis himself would say:

"If you even dream it you better wake up and apologise".

 

Walcotts life story is perhaps one of the more engaging human interest stories of heavyweight history.