Foreman vs Walcott

By that theory, Marciano didnt ko Walcott with one punch, after 12 rounds of punishment. It was either a 1 or 2 punch ko imo.
Louis was hurt by the uppercut, but the one right hand finish Louis, knocking him out of the ring.

 

Maxomer,

I would have to agree with Dempsey here. Going by your theory, Rocky Marciano did not knockout Rex Layne or Jersey Joe Walcott with 1 punch. Obviousely, the world knows different.

I would have to disagree there. If you watch the first 5 rounds of the fight(did you) louis was extremley competitive and the fight was arguebably even going into the 6th round. I think I had it 2-2-1 after 5 rounds, Marciano took the first 2 convinsingly, then in the 3rd louis really started getting going with his jab and hook. I believe 2 judges had the fight within one round difference going into 8th so louis was still very much in it even though he was fading. That one left that floored louis changed things, and then ONE final right hand put the legend out cold.

 

Far Cry? I would have to disagree. Louis kept himself in great shape boxing tons of exhibitions during war, so he didnt lose much rust. Louis looked like his old self knocking out hall of famer billy conn and # 1 contender tami mauriello right before facing Walcott. If you watch the film, though Louis is noticably a little past it, he still posses frightening power, lethal combinations, good handspeed, and he filled in nicely to a 214lb frame.


You think Louis beats jersey joe pretty badly? I would have to disagree, he would always be trouble for louis, though louis would always catch up to him. Look at how much trouble prime louis had with billy conn, bob pastor, tommy farr, all mover boxers.

 

A right hand finished him, sure, after he'd already been knocked down once and had already been badly hurt by several hooks. It was not a one punch KO.

 

Did you not see the part where I pointed out that he was taking hooks to the chin and had already been knocked down earlier. It simply wasn't a one punch knock-out, Marciano knocked him down, Louis got up clearly hurt, Marciano landed several clean hooks while backing Louis up to the ropes and polished off and already badly hurt and tired Louis with a left-hook/right-hand. Walcott counts, Layne Counts. Louis does not.

 

I agree, In fact Louis became a little more cagey as time progressed and Walcott may have had a better time with a greener louis...In the 2nd Walcott fight Joe set a counter punch trap..JJW fell for it but i dont know too many Heavys who would survive the 6-piece combo Louis layed on him...Walcott would have always been a stylistic nightmare for him. Walcott had to be the heavyweight Spoiler number 1 and one of the most fit of all of them, when he was able to train (later in his career when he had proper backing)

 

I agree.

Walcott would always trouble Louis. But the pre-WWII version beats Walcott without any controversy.

 

No, Foreman would KO Walcott.

Dont think because Ali & Walcott were crafty slick boxers thay Joe could do what Ali did because....
1. Ali used the rope-a-dope to beat Foreman, not his usual style.
2. Ali took a better shot than Joe... & George WOULD LAND at some point no matter how well his opponent fought.

 

Louis and Marciano landed on him but it took both of them late in the fight to stop JJW....the young version of Foreman did not have that kind of stamina

 

pre-ali foreman would destroy walcott - ali was only one of a few ATG's that could stop that version. foreman was not the same fighter after that ali loss - his mind was ****ed up. jimmy young would be destroyed by pre-ali foreman. later foreman fought the wrong fight - tactics were changed so he could pace himself. young would end up like frazier and norton if they had fought in 1973. incidently earnie shavers ko'd young in 3 rounds in 1973. anyone seen that fight?

 

Pre Ali Foreman would have lost to Young, although Ali showed the world Foreman would be winded after 6 -8....Young was a loser early in his career and learned his trade sparring and fighting above his head I saw him lose to Randy Nuemann in the garden and he looked like a nothing fighter, he was stooped by Shaver but came back to Draw with Earnie and then beat Lyle...everyone that saw the draw felt Jimmy won and Jimmy became a different confident fighter after those fights

 

Louis was not even within shouting distance of prime Suzie. He looked like **** in his first match with Walcott, and largely due to the fact that he had only fought in 3 ACTUAL matches in 5.5 years, and the last one came 15 months earlier. I don't know to what extent these exhibitions were keeping him fresh. in the rematch, he seemed to be in better shape and more focussed. Low and behold, he scored a knockout. This was a very different Louis from the one who had anialated Max Schmeling in a single round 10 years earlier. Are there any guarantees that Louis would have killed Walcott? No, but I can't help but think that a prime Louis would have done the same thing to him, only with less trouble.

 

George had a good jab, but that doesn't translate into a solid boxer. Contemorary reports always (well, usually) laid into Foreman for being robotic, unimaginitive, ponderous and slow.
Those flaws weren't a problem against Frazier and Norton, because he didn't have to look hard to find either of them, but against the cagey and elusive Walcott, he'd have trouble.

I don't know if Jersey Joe can pull off a win, but for a few rounds he could make George look pretty damn average. A good boxer will always make George look average.

 

Even though I love the everlasting hell out of Jersey Joe (he might just be my favorite cutie) I can't make him a favorite to survive George Foreman. He would be stalked by a taller man with a significant reach advantage, who was much stronger than him which I think will be telling in the clinches. I don't think George allows him enough room to work with, and I definitely think the reach advantage Foreman enjoys is a lot more decisive than a lot of people think it is. Jersey will have to lean into George a bit and Foreman doesn't care what part he hits.


On the right night, Walcott wins and makes it look easy, but as the mean, I think he succumbs to George's raw physical force. If Walcott makes it out of round four it is definitely his fight to lose. I would love to view this fight regardless, but I'd definitely love to see the night that Walcott wins.

 

Disagree. Though Louis looked slightly past his prime(reflexes duller and speed slightly diminished), he did not look any worse than say a early 1970s Ali off his long layoff. That Early 1970s Ali was still pretty good right? Louis was still a great Heavyweight 1945-1948. At least in my opinion he was.

Disagree. If you watch the film, though Louis is noticably a little past it, he still posses frightening power, lethal combinations, terrific handspeed, and he filled in nicely to a 214lb frame. I think what played a big part played here was Walcott at his peak made him look amatuerish because Walcott's style was so hard to figure out.

Once again louis kept himself sharp by boxing hundreds of exhibitions against worthy opponents during WW II. he shaked off the rust fast. Take a look at this fight vs # 1 contender Tami Mauriello 1946, this fight is the one RIGHT BEFORE he fought walcott. Your Telling me Louis doesnt look like near vintage self right here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzJaokX_N8

They were its noticable, there is film out there of some of them too if you ever wanted to see it.

See I disagree here. Walcott said Louis looked "faster" in the first fight. I noticed this too. I think his reflexes and speed deteriorated one more year in 1948. Louis appeared much more aggresive in the first fight, Louis didnt even open up in the rematch until the 11th round. Louis unlike the first fight, was WELL behind on the cards going into round 11...walcott was on his way to championship. Louis ultimatley knocked him out late in the clutch with a picture perfect combination, but walcott was well in command before that. Correct me if I am mistaked but didnt louis weigh in 2lb heavier in the rematch? yet he is in better shape in rematch? Doesnt make sense

This peak version of Louis was the best who ever lived, IMO. his speed and sharpness were at there best, yes. But even the aging Louis all the way up through 1948 could still lick most men in history. He didnt lose THAT much by 1946.