Barbados Joe Walcott....Potentially more impressive than SRR?

Really now? What next day reports have you read that suggest this? The ones I've read claimed the fix was agreed upon by both parties prior to the first fight (in which Walcott won about 10 of the 15 rounds) so that Lavigne would be granted the victory were he to merely survive the distance.

In the rematch, there was all kinds of speculation as to the kind of shape Walcott was in (hampered by the weight, leg cramps, fits of sickness prior, etc.) and the fight was still considered one of the best in history up until that point. Lavigne clearly won, though, as he found himself able to actually take the initiative against a less than best Walcott as he was unable to do in the first fight (in which he received a drubbing throughout and was often on the retreat, but held on gamely).

 

Pretty much any worthwhile article on the fight will tell it was fixed beforehand, and agreed upon by everyone involved. Even the fans were aware. If that's what you mean by "done the right way" then there you have it. Given the next day reports and round by rounds I've read (I'll post them if you'd like) it seems Walcott was more or less dominating the fight, at least throughout the first two thirds or so when he started to tire late. Lavigne was game, but battered throughout.

 

Still, given that both men seemed to have been at their best in the first fight, and given how that one panned out in comparison to the rematch, where Walcott's condition was thoroughly questioned, I'd say the rematch is hardly a deterrant to Walcott's slugging abilities. Especially given how much of a hard ******* Lavigne really was.

 

Well, we agree on that. I just don't think at his best he was one that would've been out-slugged by any man anywhere near his weight. Even Langford resorted to primarily fencing in their bout, with Walcott bringing the fight, especially the further it progressed. But then, Langford was certainly the more versatile of the two and it was to his overwhelming advantage to have done so, so fair play there.

 

Great stuff :good

 

From the accounts I've read Langford got the better portion of his work done with the lead left (i.e. jab), which did little to discourage Walcott's advances but piled up the points. Doesn't sound like he out-punched him to me.

I'll have to check up on the West fight.

 

I think if you take into account Walcott's weight jumping feats he would probably rank ahead of Lavigne. Although I am no means an expert on either guy and have just read a few reports on a few of their bouts.

That fight seemed an odd one really. Walcott was severely shafted.

 

I certainly dont think Walcott is overrated, even here on ESB classic.

Joe Walcott and George "Kid" Lavigne are two of the greatest fighters pound-for-pound of all-time.

It's impossible to ascertain precisely which fights in history were actually on the level and which ones were fake. We know about some of them, but the bulk of the fights are still obscure, and the further back in history the more difficult it is to say.
Walcott was rated as the genuine goods though, and a match for much bigger men, that much is clear.