Could Bonavena Have Beat Walcott Of 1952?

Right! I find it hard to consider a supremely conditioned Marciano would perform worse than Bonavena... Walcott was imo the best Marciano faced, and I think Marciano fought Walcott at the peak of his prime. Walcott would be a devil to fight on that night for almost anyone, he was elusive, nimble, ungodly strong and accurate with his punches. Bonavena would just be out of his depth.

 

Your opinion is Walcott at38 was at the peak of his prime?

 

From the footage we have of him, absolutely. He struggled to be consistent his entire career from literary sources and evidenced by the fact he had a family to support. So while yes... he missed his physical prime. As a boxer in totality, his prime was during his mid to late 30s, and I believe his best night was against Marciano.

 

No.

 

We disagree. but I see where you are coming from.Myself I think Marciano's style was a natural foil for Walcott and flattered Joe a bit .I think he was at his best against Louis 5 years earlier,but your opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's.

 

There's a lot of missing footage of Walcott in his prime. There could be evidence he was even quicker and more agile in his 20's which wouldn't shock me as most of the footage we have is of a man pushing 40 after a very long and rough career.

Sure you can say that the older Walcott "put everything together" drawing upon all his years of experience and skill to put up great performances, but Im not sold on the idea that was the "best" version of him.

 

I think Rocky's style was actually bad for Walcott. It's a testament to his skills that he gave Marciano such a hard fight in their first encounter. With Bonavena, I'd pick that version of Walcott to win. (IMHO, of course.)

 

Interesting.

 

I have trouble seeing how Walcott's shorter, sharper punching, better feet and angles, and being generally smarter in the ring not winning him the fight.

I would think Bonavena is tailor made for Walcott being so wide and wild.

I wouldnt be shocked to see it go the other way, but there you go.

 

No no, I think I misspoke... mistyped. I am saying that of what we have of Walcott footage, his prime was displayed most in the first Marciano fight. I certainly think he was faster, had better reflexes and was stronger when he was young, but from what we know he never had a moment to actualize any large portion of his ability until he got older and had a more stable financial status, as well as a resume.

I think though against Marciano, Walcott was at his peak. As a younger man he never had the time or money to afford coaches and trainers frequently. I think some fighters reach their apex later in their career, honestly I think thats the case for Jersey Joe.

 

I can totally see the argument for his performance against Louis being his peak. I think that was an awesome effort on the point of both men in their two bouts. It's frankly wild that there is a man who fought Louis twice and Charles four times. Walcott stacked his resume in the last 6 years of his career more than most fighters ever have the chance to.

 

Good exchanging thoughts with you.

 

Walcott really get's a rough word around here at times. Any man that almost takes Louis's crown, KO's Charles and almost beats Marciano is not losing to Oscar "Plato" Bonavena. That slug is one of the worst contenders of the era. He hung on and beat guys he wasn't meant to I'll give him that but he doesn't accomplish this against the best version of Walcott.