how in the world did abe simon.....

That line is seriously poetic. I’m going to steal it and claim it’s my own invention.

 

So we are basically getting into whose disgrace was worst!

The bottom line, is that they both lost to contenders, who were not exactly world beaters!

 

Foreman lost to the number 3 contender who ,in his last 2 fights had beaten Ron Lyle and dropped a very controversial decision to Muhammad Ali.
Walcott lost to Layne who had been beaten by the legendary Dave Whitlock 6 months earlier and whose only half way decent scalp was that of the in and outer Turkey Thompson. Elmer Ray whose best win was over so/ so Lee Savold,and the clever but punchless light heavyweight Joey Maxim who was unranked.

 

Look I know you like to go round and round and round splitting hairs but I don't .. to me Walcott was a talented boxer puncher with flashes of brilliance who was inconsistent for his whole career .. always with excuses, often w validity but nonetheless excuses be they lack of funds, poor conditioning, age, ect .. still, he lost often to fighters who all time great heavyweights don't lose to in my opinion.

 

The greatest fighter ever would lose half his fights with poor management. Take any career perfect record and rearrange the order of the opponents and you won’t have a perfect record anymore. Even Ali would lose to guys he beat just by switching the order he got them. People don’t understand the huge advantage good management is. It is no coincidence at all that best fighters of all time had great management and backing. It allowed them to preserve their talent. Getting through learning fights unscathed. The wrong opponent at wrong time with nothing at stake can make talented fighters look inconsistent.

The only thing worth noting is how a guy did when he reached top class. Once Walcott was challenging for titles he was great. He held his own with the great Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles after cleaning out the division. Layne and Maxim were good enough to edge top fighters. There is no shame in that. It was a good era if you study the film.

 

Absolute validity to that but it's also assuming the opponents have terrific management as well .. as far as Maxim and Layne, they were decent at heavyweight and showed that Walcott could and did lose to less than stellar opposition even at his best. If he lost to that level of competition at his best then it's no shock that he could be knocked out by an Abe Simon if he were not at his best ...

 

Abe Simon though, without seeing film of the fight, by today’s near unanimous belief that size conquers all, is not such a inexcusable loss that people think it is. Is it?

Personally, at a later stage of his career Walcott beat the same kind of opponents in Europe. Career timing, the right management really comes into it.

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

 

So if you go by his "best " years w management , 46 - 51, he had twenty eight fights .. he went 19 - 9 .. not exactly terrific by any means. Comparing Tandberg to Simon is a huge stretch as well ..

 

Prolly got hit by that big fist

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...champion-giving-abe-simon-picture-id469308155

 

Context. There is nothing great about Walcott prior to his 1940 retirement. His record is unremarkable with numerous losses, his only wins of note being against other novice journeymen.

All that would change after his 44 return.

 

Its unlikely the unrated 1940 Walcott fought anything like he did in his filmed fights 8-13 years later.

 

Exactly.

The real upset, would have been Walcott beating Simon at this point.

 

Though I suspect that his defensive style owed a lot to the fact that he often had to come to fights under trained.

 

On his return Walcott amassed 35 fights,of which he won 25 and lost 10, or nearly 30%.
Of his wins 2 were against 6 fight novices,another was against an 8 fight novice.So there are 3 novice journeyman right there.
Seven of his victims had 15 or more losses on their sheets.
Of the others at least 4 were very moderate journeymen.
Al Blake 28-16-1
Johnny Denson53-47-6
Felix De Paoli16-36-6
Johnny Allen 22-20-0

Sure he was fighting some man of better class, but he was also dropping decisions to 13-14-1 Johnny Allen , Rex Layne and Elmer Ray.

So lets no go overboard on his comeback victories.