Bone crusher Smith V Jersey Joe Walcott

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Fergy, Jan 18, 2017.


Walcott v bone crusher. How's it go

Poll closed Jan 25, 2017.
  1. Walcott on points

    8 vote(s)
    80.0%
  2. smith on points

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Smith by ko

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
  4. Walcott by ko

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,565
    36,126
    Jan 8, 2017
    Bone crusher v Jersey Joe. Can the wily Walcott from the Louis fight s defeat the smith from the Larry holmes battle. Could smith hammer Walcott or would Walcott be to sly for the 80s champ?????
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    Walcott by decision too shifty and versatile for the one dimensional Smith.imo.
     
    Fergy and young griffo like this.
  3. blackhercules

    blackhercules Active Member banned Full Member

    531
    169
    Nov 13, 2016
    Look another thread putting a 6'4 230 pound heavyweight against a 6'0 190 pound cruiser weight. This is new. Bone Crusher by early round KO.
     
    ascended likes this.
  4. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    Your trolling act was tired the first time it surfaced now its an unbelievable bore.
     
    RockyJim likes this.
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,110
    25,266
    Jan 3, 2007
    Ordinarily I wouldn't pick Walcott to beat modern day super heavys. But we're not talking about the Lewis, Bowe or Klitschko variety here. Smith for all his qualities and achievements as a late comer to the sport was just too limited in multiple key areas. He was slow and very rough around the edges in his generalship and acumen. He was outpointed by Tony Tubbs and Marvis Frazier who although were very good boxers weren't in walcotts class, and James wasn't even able to take advantage of their average chins either. Smith had plenty of power but he was a poor finisher and nor was he the most accurate or composite of punchers besides. Jersey might get decked along the way and have a few scares but at the end the day I think he wins a convincing decision.
     
    mcvey likes this.
  6. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,565
    36,126
    Jan 8, 2017
    That's why I thought of these two guys. Neither in prime were super heavy s and any weight disadvantage was made up by the skills of Jersey Joe. As he proved against Joe Louis and marciano in there first fight, Walcott could take some heavy arrtilary. So to Me there s no large 'unfairness' so to speak in this match up
     
  7. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,110
    25,266
    Jan 3, 2007
    I think Smith was close enough to be considered a super heavyweight. I've seen his height listed as 6'4" or 6'5" depending on the source, and at various points in his career weighed anywhere from 228-250. But in terms of quality and stature he wasn't a Lewis, Bowe, Klitscko, etc.. In a system without alpahbet titles and a more fair ranking system he would have spent the bulk of his career at fringe status.
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Smith was a big heavyweight, no doubt.
    Walcott should win a decision over him.
     
  9. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,565
    36,126
    Jan 8, 2017
    Suppose when I'm thinking of super heavy s fighters it's fighters like Lewis , bowe, the k brother S, and tyson fury that springs to mind. It's almost as if in the last twenty years heavyweight s have got huge!. But like u say Walcott was a very skillful fighter, a lot more so than Smith who was lucky to meet a zombified witherspoon