Barbados Joe Walcott v Thomas Hearns @147

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Absolutely. There is variation. Today, there are plenty of boxers who are deliberate, pick their shots, and wear their man down.

I know little about boxing in 19th century Britain so I'll take your word for it. As for the U.S. in the 1920s, I wouldn't say that it was on the margins of illegality. It was newly legal, yes, but it was gaining in popularity rapidly -especially by Dempsey-Carpentier. 91,000 packed the bleachers for that one. Alcohol was illegal too in 1920 right up through ~1933 and it was quite popular. Ask Al Capone. My point is that it was unchecked and unmonitored by state commissions. This leaves room for shenanigans.

I'd have to see these manuals to make an informed opinion. I agree about the use of the jab. Most used it more to fend the guy off -not much as an offensive weapon. The films suggest this. There weren't many concussive jabs back then. I'd guess that no jab was akin to the Liston/Hearns jabs that are emulated today.

Hearns wouldn't be looking to clinch. He'd be a sniper. No modern WW with any brains would fight JW in close because a man that short and strong could rip you up in close. But if you have what I would call a modern jab and you know how to punch and you have a good skill set, I see matador vs. a small bull all night -he'd be kept at bay at the end of punches, angled all around, and would have trouble reaching most WWs.

Really short guys don't do so well where I'm from. All you need is a hard jab and good legs and it is an easy fight! If Walcott, as great for his time as he surely was, cannot find his way inside and cannot pin his man down enough, then what can he do? That's a tall order (no pun) when you have Hearns, who you can't reach, striking you with lightening 37 times a round.

I can't see how his reportedly immense physical strength would matter enough here except to prolong his beating at the end of Hearns' shots until his face fell apart.

 

The cobweb era is called the cobweb era because we have no means of objectively analyzing anything. That is a fact. I don't refer to it as the "criminal era"... although it seems that the opposition argues that because there is no first-hand knowledge of who was doing what and when, that it can't be worse than 1940s Cali or the 40s-50s New York because we have information about guys like Primo et al. That position is not tenable.

When the sport is legitimate, organized crime can find a way in, but it cannot thrive because there are legitimate forces watching. If the sport is illegitimate, there are more opportunities for shenanigans! It's in the shadows! It can't get more obvious.

The position that it was "just as bad" or "worse" in 1940 as it was before 1920 is delusional. It is akin to arguing that if drugs become legal in the U.S. that organized crime won't miss a beat. They may have a hand in it, but they are not big on exposure -be it by the the federal government or by state commissions. They will not hold their former sway.

Incidentally, I can name you a pre-war fighter who in all likelihood was not tainted by organized crime. The biggest fighter of the era -Joe Louis. The fact that his managers were small time racketeers mean nothing. They were black.

Sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't assume that a 10 second film of Ali running around with his hands down and throwing zero body shots is film of a technician! Take a look at Corbett vs. Fitz. The stance would earn him a concussion today. His hands are low, he backs straight up -Assuming that he would somehow deal with Joe Louis is crazy talk.

What I am saying is that it is highly unlikely that a 5'1 WW with an archaic style designed for an essentially different sport is going to win a fight against a superfast 6'1 technically sound fighter with a modern style that has been adapted to the modern rules of boxing.

No one has a monopoly on facts and certainty here. But probability is squarely in my corner here.

I'm sure he did as well as reported against far taller boxers than him... far taller boxers of the turn of the last century. That is the qualifier here that changes the whole context.

And that is the crux of our debate. You believe that boxers in 1900 were technical equivalents of boxers of 1942. I reject that. Skills evolve and the sport changed which forced that evolution.

I'm sure he was. If he had come along in 1930 and was doing what he did in 1900 even against guys like Garcia, Ross, Armstrong, Azteca, or Steele, then I'd improve his chances.

 

Walcotts has the massive stylistic advantage if the legends are true. His name is also Joe.

However Hearns as a more modern athlete would use his speed and power and basically win. In fact it would be hilarious watching Hearns fire down on the poor guy.

 

You too easily assume that Walcott was a miracle. And to arrive at that easy conclusion, you have to discount his severe physical disadvantage which, while it would be a benefit in wrestling, it sure as hell isn't in boxing. And you go further than that. You discount the unknown caliber of his opponents. You discount the characteristics of the sport which were far different than the modern version. You discount the fact that you never saw him.

The conclusion here is, believe it or not, the open-minded one. I don't know if he was a physical miracle, but I can count several variables that may skew that perception.

What you are doing is attacking each specific point, and you are failing to see the big picture. By taking your ax to each individual tree, you are discounting a forest. Take a step back and look at it objectively instead of fighting it point by point, because there are too many points.

A century isn't long enough?

Tell me, do you believe that 12 rounds is that much different than 15 rounds?
If your answer is "no" then engage me and every other purist and lose.
If your answer is "yes" then concede the point.

Wait a minute. I thought it was clear that you chose Bowe vs. Marciano because of the obvious size difference. I can sure as hell compare Charles or Walcott or Moore to Bowe in terms of skill and that's easy -all three were more skilled than Bowe.

Now look at it: the result is that Marciano can handle size (Skhor & Wilson) and Marciano can handle skill (Charles, Moore, Walcott).

It is improbable that Walcott could overcome it over 15 rounds. (Are we arriving at port?)

Who'd he fight that was 6'7? He fought De Kuh who was 6'3. Mickey Walker was a modern fighter fighting under modern rules. He was the same height and reach as Duran, but was a natural Middle.

And I've seen him on film!

PS/Duran is the greatest post-Robinson fighter of them all. Are you trying to provoke me? Is John Thomas behind that blasphemous comment??

I don't know of any fighter Walker beat who was a foot taller. For the benefit of the argument, let's say he did. I've seen Walker on film. Boxing was extant under its modern rules. His era was essentially the same as now. Walcott's was not. Mickey would therefore have a far better argument because we'd be dealing with more of the known. With Walcott we are forced to deal with more of the unknown.

Oh, I myself have referred to Tyson as the signal most devestating puncher I've ever seen. I've seen. Perhaps, Walcott was even better... perhaps. I don't know. I haven't seen him.

Tyson is a good example. He came around in the 80s just before the rise (or resurrection in Foreman) of 4 tall, hard-punching, big-hearted, technically strong (or grizzly strong) heavyweights. Would he have beaten them all? Nope. I think he'd go 1-3 at best. The era matters. Now with Walcott, you have several other things besides the objective level of the caliber/skill of opponents to factor in. That's why the probability sinks for him.

But he wouldn't be the "MegaTyson" that Snorlaxative kisses in his dreams. I contend a similar point when I argue that Walcott probably wouldn't be quite the phenom now that he was then.

This content is protected

Wills was great. I said "most"...

For purposes of hypothetical argument there is... That precedent is Jones.

 

Not in the least. You haven't been following the line of argument.

By Organized Crime on these shores, we are really talking about the Sicilians/Italians' organization. There were Irish and Jewish equivalents during the 20s Prohibition Era, but they weren't the true organization that rose after 1933 with Luciano and Lansky designing it. It peaked in the 40s and 50s not the 20s and 30s.

In some ways -but it was more work. Here's what I will assert: Before the Walker Law, boxing was messy. After Walker, boxing got more organized. The criminal element never left, and it never will. But criminals have more sway in alleys than in boardrooms.

You will not convince me that boxing was more corrupt in 1940 than it was in 1901. Hell, they didn't even need La Cosa Nostra (which was still in Sicily at that time) -they had the newspaper men who would only publicize you if they got bribed! So much for the shining credibility of newspaper decisions...

They had no pull on the world stage. They were numbers runner for crying out loud -those guys were below pimps on the heirarchy. In fact, after Joe Louis retired the first time, he got involved with the IBC -which was soon taken over by Cosa Nostra. And then he came out to fight Ezzard. Now, you would think that his new connections with the guys in suits would get him a nice little fix. His name was Joe Loui$ to them, but what happens? He lost.

And anyone who argues that he is a technician is a dummy.

Obviously. There is enough film to attest to that.

I, as you know, do not believe that Corbett would last very long with Jesse Ferguson had fought as he did at the time. I appreciate that they were dealing with a different set of circumstances in the ring, but do not pretend as you nostalgia buffs do, that they could step into 1994 and contend with Holyfield and company. I think it is frankly not only ludicrous, but unfair to them.

I got a problem with taking a lion out of it's natural environment! Never mind a great pioneer.

As long as you qualify it, I won't fight you on it. Perhaps you could send McGrain a note telling him that these were essentially different sports.

Well, okay, Janitor. I wish I owned a casino in Vegas, and you'd consider laying down a large wager.

 

---As long as Snorlaxative doesn't join him, I'm okay.

McWise-ass.