Barbados Joe Walcott v Thomas Hearns @147

Its lucky that you get guys like you and me.

Otherwise the see saw would never ballence out.

 

Nah

Nice lump of coal usualy sees them right.

 

Midget Snorlax, the Classic section's village idiot, classy as always. You're mother must be proud.

Anyway, threads like this are not valid because you are essentially discussing two different sports. Janitor and I had a long series of debates about this already but I hold that Walcott fought in an era that is best referred to as the "Cobweb era". He reached his peak at around the turn of the century and no one knows first hand the caliber of the vast majority of his opponents. There is no film of Walcott, at least that I've ever seen, but there is of Choynski and he is magnificently underwhelming.

25 rounds was not unusual then, and that makes bouts endurance contests instead of showcases of skill which modern fights tend to be. It is also no coincidence that most boxers then had cauliflower ears -they wrestled almost as much has they boxed.

Boxing wasn't legitimate. In New York, it's legality was sporadic until the 1920 with the Walker Law. Before that, no-decisions where the norm. Some fights were closed down mid-fight by the police and unsurprisingly, the door was wide open for unskilled riff-raff looking for lunch, padded records full of undocumented hobos and such that make today's 'opponents' look like world-beaters, fixes, pay-offs, dives. The criminal element, always a part of boxing, was at its apex because it was more of a racket than a sport.

The skillset was different and suited for what it was back then, but not well-suited for modern boxing. So to analyze "what if's" between pioneers and modern greats you have to either make allowances or speculate until you are neck deep in fiction... or in Walcott's case, science fiction.

[yt]2CCU3pnlEOM&feature=related[/yt]

....
As to the question at hand:

Any objective review of the film that does survive leaves one looking for anything resembling an effective jab. I doubt that Walcott ever faced a jab half as good as Hearns'.

The powerful, piston-like jab developed over time, although there were few exceptions. Boxing skills as we know them developed almost as soon as it became legal and commissions were formed that brought on lesser rounds, the neutral corner, and the like. The sport changed, and skill sets were adapted and accelerated. So styles changed and technique changed. Some of the old tricks remained, but much of it fell away as inefficient things must.

As it was, I doubt that Walcott, at 5'1, would have any idea what hit him once Hearns jams that jab in his eye, and once that right comes after it. I think a modern fighter with a good jab would handle many, many fighters of the Cobweb era over 15 rounds -especially the short ones.

Anyone choosing the five foot tall Walcott over Hearns has a burden: they need precedent. How many modern boxers in the lower weight categories defeated another who was one foot taller?

Hell, the reason why you don't see any 5 foot tall Welterweights practically EVER is because their physical disadvantages make contention almost impossible. The odds are pretty good in my estimation that today, Walcott would not have been a great. If he could have, then there would have been other 5 foot tall welterweights who followed in his footsteps.

Alas, there were none... why?

 

Stonehands89 -

Fantastic post!:good

 

Game, set & match!

Checkmate!

Kudo's!

 

Wilde was not a typical boxer from that time, he was the Naseem Hamed of that day, so it's exactly that - he is daring his opponents to hit him, but with his reflexes he slipped their punches and countered at weird angles. I have a book from 1923 by a British author, where he at length tells his impressions about Jimmy Wilde (and other boxers from that time).

 

Ahhhh, just like your hero Tyson

:yep

 

McGrain and Janitor --I appreciate your retorts. Some good stuff there. To quote Hearns, "I shall return" with a rebuttal after the inconvenience of the work day.

 

You also like talking nonsense.

 

i agree with this

 

Not only that, but it was also different in another aspect -grappling. Fighters then had to stand differently because they were boxing and trying to physically maneuver their man to land shots and stop his shots. Today, these would be clinches and would be broken and eventually someone would get a warning.

Another thing -the gloves were smaller... considerably smaller. This effects parrying, this effects blocks, and this places a bit more emphasis on defense because you're going to cut easier and things are going to break easier. Then we have 25 rounds. Then we have the "newspaper decisions" -which you simply cannot fully trust!

Different sports, McGrain.

Dempsey was a hobo. In fact, he was adamant about being a hobo and not being a bum. A hobo, he said, was transient and worked sporadically. A bum stayed in one place and didn't work. By undocumented I mean most of the guys boxing in 1900 are unknown. We don't even know who some of Walcott's foes were, never mind their level of skill. And many boxers back then were transient in the sport. Mike Walsh and Scott Bright Eyes Cowen (?) took their place among a score (including 2 of his last three bouts in 1911, his last year) on Walcott's record as guys who fought twice and lost and that was it, or got KOd by Walcott and that was it. Never heard from again.

This isn't Walcott's fault. I am positive that he was great -at least for his time. He fought 165 times... but the actual number is surely far higher. The problem is we don't know much about much when it comes to him. And we know nothing first hand.

... the key phrase here is "as has been documented"... you may not like my terming turn of the 20th century boxing as the "cobweb era" but there you go. I know you wouldn't argue that great fighters like Jack Chase, Lloyd Marshall, Tiger Wade et al., not getting their due in California was akin to U.S. boxing before 1920 -"on the run" and "on the lam" in most states and run by outlaws.

Okay... see my first response to this post above. How about agreeing that they were "essentially different sports"... because they were.

Before I make the point about why good punching, speed, and technical adjustments is less important let me clear away the cobwebs. First of all, my argument is that the styles were far different and that is obvious. Guys back then fought differently because they were contending with a different set of circumstances and specifics (Considerable weight differences. Smaller gloves. More rounds. Grappling. No neutral corner.)

Here is my position: I don't know. And you don't either. However, I am looking at probability -and the plain assertion is that the probability or likelihood that Joe Walcott, as mighty a midget as he may have been, is going to be WW champion against a modern fighter is in my opinion, slim to none. And slim is losing weight. You may have the opinion that the level of improbability is less than I, but I can't see anyone seriously arguing that it is probable.

--that is no disrespect to Walcott... what I believe I am doing is accepting Joe Walcott on his own terms without injecting him with modern expectations that he never knew. He was a great pioneer, as was the vast majority of the legends who retired before 1920. But times change.

Now, if you apply the rules of 1900 and shrink the gloves, add 13 rounds, etc. he may have a chance. I still don't quite buy it because the adapted set of skills that were honed after 1920 and crystallized in the 1940s were not, by and large, in his repertoire.

If you knew who they were, would it sway just a little? These are not no names. The guy on the right is Jim Corbett. The guy on the left is Kid McCoy. Are they "aping" or are they "sparring"?

I wouldn't be awed if Marvin Hagler was stronger and more durable than Walcott. Nor would I if Roldan, Barkley, and Andries were as well. If you are talking about grappling, then it's a different question.

I don't mind reading what you critique in analysis. It's comparative and it gives us an idea of fighter X's ability to cope with a specific question that fighter Y poses.

I have seen Janitor's argument about the manuals. They say alot of things. I tend to look at practice -now to be fair, I overstated the case against pioeer's jabs. There are decent ones out there and I've seen them but most of them came from the hip (Corbett and Fitz), or were pushed out there, or were already to extended (we Americans consider that a "European style" jab -where the jab is hanging 3 quarters at the target).

The hell he would! Roy Jones is neither durable enough, nor is any fighter trained to fight today as they did then. Hearns wouldn't have done well either -he has nothing on his frame to burn for 25 rounds.

Those reasons are a major part of the argument but the other major part is that Walcott's style was designed for an essentially different sport.

Are all great tennis players by definition great ping-pong players?