How close to prime was Jersey Joe vs Marciano?

The man lost almost 30% of the times he entered the ring, roughly the same ration before and after 1944, after he finally found more than 100 calories a day and gained 2 pounds (Because The Depression landed squarely and solely on his shoulders and on no other fighters')). I have posted a numbing amount of contemporary accounts where he is referred to as a JOURNEYMAN by the best in the business.

Yet, he dances a little two-step on some grainy film against some slob who wouldn't qualify as a 4 rounder today and he is suddenly GREATNESS...

 

Joe Louis wouldn't qualify for a four rounder today? Ha! Quality

 

So do you rate all of
Stanley Poreda
Charley Retzlaff
Young Stribling
Ernie Schaaf
Larry Gains
Walter Neusal
Paulino Uzcudun
Tommy Loughran
Abe Simon
Billy Conn
Lou Nova
Tommy Farr
Bob Pastor
Buddy Baer
Elmer Ray

As better heavyweights than Jersey Joe Walcott, or are there a few you think he was better than?

 

I believe he is referring to Marciano.

 

Yeah, he is. But he's conveniently leaving out the other great fighters who Walcott fought.

 

I wasn't.

 

You wanna talk, you’re more delusional then all the Rocky looneys put together you said ****in SRL beat Durab in their first bout and Ali beat Frazier in FOTC

 

I'm going to step in right now because I see the cycle repeating. Rez, you're building into getting yourself banned again.

 

it's like you want it to happen

 

I sincerely don't. Hence why I'm trying to let you know. I'd rather see you take a day off and come back refreshed than have you get banned for a week and miss all the HD old timey stuff. Unless you need to get banned to work on stuff. I'm not going to question the method of an artist.

 

This whole flip floppity fanboy/friend-to-critic/therapist, weird, jealousy complex you have with me really needs to stop.

Nobody is getting banned. I’m having fun on the forum. McGrain hasn’t warned me about anything. You’re in your own head. And frankly you sound kind of obsessed.

Just to be clear, I neither watch, read, nor consume your content. I do not view you as a peer (regardless how hard you try to insert yourself as one).

And there comes a time in every mans life where you simply have to get off my nuts.

Thank you.

 

I honestly cannot see how Rez has done anything even remotely close to the limit.

Nothing to see here.

 

Rez all I've ever said about you is you're talented with some weird opinions.

It is entirely possible I'm in my own head.

I don't know where TF else I'm supposed to be.

No **** we aren't peers. You edit videos. I write.

Let's not lie to the people.

I say like one thing a week to you on a boxing forum.

Look at you. Emotional.

This type of reaction is exactly what I meant.

 

Walcott was a great over 34 year old fighter, who had some unusual abilities for a heavyweights such as quick and smooth footwork, a top counter punch with power in it, rare feints, and a good overall defense. IMO he was correctly ranked #1 when Rocky was champion, as he had a packages of skills, enhanced by a tough opponents faced . He easily out maneuvering Joe Louis and flooring him 3 times, and also flooring Rocky ahead on points in all three matches based on the available films.

I had Walcott slightly ahead of Rocky unit the TKO. Yes Walcott was a quality journeyman on the way up facing a who's who of the decade, but he finished a champion.

One does not beat E. Charles 2x, should have beaten Joe Louis 1x, defeat H. Johnson, E. Ray, J. Bivins, and Maxim and take Rocky to the brink without being very good. While it's true he lost a few times on the way up, Walcott had six children to feed and faced dangerous puncher types very early. He wasn't a well managed fighter like you see today at all.

Judging him at his best, which for him happened about 30 years old he was something. A 12 round punchers nightmare for the guys his size for sure. I say he was just outside of his prime for Rocky, but still very good.

 

Past it but still quality. Basic biology and common sense should tell you the wear and tear from such a long career combined with the stress of a day job and family means that in terms of overall physical ability he was somewhat compromised.

What I find puzzling is people do not hesitate to say Douglas "put it all together for one big night" against Tyson and accuse Douglas of being inconsistent with a yo yo career but insist Walcott was top notch quality despite he himself having some iffy performances and losses prior to the marciano fight. He did in fact lose to the green, B level Rex Layne just 1 year before he won the title.

The other thing I find strange is why people view the Marciano fight as Walcott putting on an amazing dazzling show and this being evidence he still had a lot left in the tank. 2 things I'd like to say about that: Walcott only won the title in the 1st place after facing the same opponent for the 3rd time, an opponent who also was fairly shopworn. I'm not saying Charles was ripe for the taking, but any decent boxer who faces the same guy over and over again will pick up on patterns/habits/etc and find a way to win. Secondly, perhaps we should view it the other way around: rather than Walcott looking amazing against marciano because he was still close to prime, perhaps he only looked that good because of the opponent. Marciano was a tough and determined fighter but maybe this fight simply exposed his limitations showing he could be outboxed and made to look silly by a guy who was old even by that era's standards before Marciano's youth and aggression chipped away at Walcott bit by bit.