Ike Ibeabuci vs Jersey Joe Walcott

So am I to accept, that you are really, honestly telling the truth - when you say, you would favour Tommy Burns to defeat Deontay Wilder? Don't you understand, how unbelievably silly that is?

 

We watched the same fight, then.

 

You are very fond of quoting that out of context, but essentially yes.

If it is the case that whatever arguments I put forward, you are just going to say that I don't really believe them, then the whole exercise is rather pointless.

On the other hand, if you don't believe that I hold the beliefs that I say I do, then why are you trying to change my mind?

Somebody accused me of thinking like a politician, but you almost seem to think like a religious zealot.

You seem to have certain core boxing beliefs, that you will never question, to the point that you don't even feel comfortable when someone else question them!

Just look at the range of beliefs held by boxing trainers and historians.

There are obviously people a lot further removed from your position that I am!

 

I am not so sure. Walcott was very slippery. He beat Elmer Ray and Joe Baksi who were both physically strong puncher types. If Ibeabuchi found Everton Davis frustrating he would have found Walcott an absolute nightmare . I wouldn’t be so quick to use the style advantage slogan in a paper rock scissors kind of way. It’s an unfounded internet creation. Boxing is not top trumps. There would be assumptions that Joe Frazier would be wrong for Walcott too yet when you study careers a washed up Eddie Machen managed to last into the last round with him. A better version of Machen could have done a lot better. So you can never tell. Each case is rightly unique. You mostly have to go with the talent. Proven Talent trumps style.

Layne and Marciano were less conventional though. They were inside smothering types. Ike, was a conventional combination puncher which for a clever counter puncher is more predictable. Ike had a good repertoire and workrate. His punches were textbook and sequenced. A mauling type opponent is more unpredictable, using weird inside blows with no sequence or rhythm to follow. You could argue that it is harder to set traps and poach openings against that kind of fighter.

Byrd was the one guy Ike managed to tag. Can’t argue with that. But for all the many blows ike landed on Marion Wilson and Everton Davis and David Tua neither man had a mark on them. We must remember that as slippery as Bryd was the guy was a built up middleweight. With a middleweight chin. the speed required to tag him just was not possessed by the majority of heavyweights of that era.. yet are we to assume because Ike was an exception here he must be the exception all of the time? Where was this crushing power against Wilson?

sometime a young fighter looks to have all the ability and go all the way, but from the same era we saw David Grant and Jeramy Williams who didn’t quite pan out.

 

Ike ko Walcott 7.

 

Even though I think Ike would win, this is a good argument.

 

Thanks.

Eddie Futch and Ray Arcel didn’t talk in terms of “style advantage” they planned game plans or strategy within each style. This internet “style advantage” talk is a nonsense that exists outside of boxing. Talent and proven ability often gets lost in such debates.

 

I don't know, what "core boxing beliefs" or "position" I'm supposed to have, that I don't like to see challenged. I have no agenda - I'm simply interested in boxing and its history.

Look, I don't know you - but from your posts it's easy to see, that you're a pretty smart guy. And as I've said before, you're obviously very knowledgeable... which is why I find some of your opinions perplexing.

I have nothing against you personally, and if what you express in this forum, is how you honestly see things - then so be it.

 

I considered the Ray fights, but decided not to mention them due to not having reports on hand. I do know that he barely beat Ray, and struggled mightily. That's more of a point for than against my argument, given that it's pretty obvious IMO that Ike is better than Ray.

And as for Baski, let's not pretend like he was anything special. He was losing to Lee Savold and Lee Oma before Walcott.

The idiom 'styles make fights' has been around since well before the internet. I know the idea that boxers struggle with certain styles more than they do others isn't new to you.

I'm sure if he found Everton Davis frustrating he'd have found Chris Byrd an absolute nightmare.

And a better version of Frazier would've done much better. Machen may have been past his best, but Frazier was only in his thirteenth pro fight.

And Frazier would be all wrong for Frazier.

There are so many examples which disprove this that it's not even funny. Each case is unique, and you need to take it on its own merits, but you evaluate and speculate these match ups based on what actually happened in their careers. Ike had no issues with a defensive wizard, and Walcott had massive issues with physical, relentless brutes.

Anyway, why is Ike not a proven talent? He beat two of the best heavyweight contenders ever.

While Ike did have better fundamentals and was a tidier fighter than Layne and Marciano, he was still a pretty off-key fighter and he was hardly a heavyweight verison of Roman Gonzalez. Walcott would still have issues timing him constantly. Especially as he got closer, because he'd end up as more of a smothering type as he got closer. Marciano and Layne imposed themselves on Walcott. Ike would do the same, even if it's in a slightly different way.

No, we can assume Ike was the exception because of all the heavyweights who tried to do that to prime Byrd, only one did. Ike. Ike's hands were clearly very fast, and it's backed up by the win over Byrd.

Marion Wilson.... the guy who fought everyone from Shannon Briggs and Ray Mercer to David Izon and Sam Peter, and yet was nobody ever stopped. Criticising Ike for not stopping him is like criticising somebody for not stopping George Chuvalo. And anyway, who's saying Ibeabuci is a big puncher?

Michael Grant*, and Michael Grant didn't beat a top twenty five heavyweight, and one of the best heavyweight contenders ever. Ike did.

 

Agreed - Poor Marvis would have no chance.

 

You misunderstand.

It is Joe who would have no chance.

 

why is it obvious Ike is better than Ray? Elmer beat Ezzard charles and Walcott. That has to trump Tua and Bryd in the scheme of things.

have you seen what Baksi did to Woodcock? Don’t tell me woodcock wasn’t any good.

This content is protected

the idiom “styles makes fights” is a boxing term. But it is not and has never been the same as “style advantage”. Because a “style” itself is not the advantage.

Do you think manny Steward would not implement a game plan for a counterpuncher to beat a slugger? Or vice versa?

There are tactics within each style to overcome each other. The advantage is only with the one who can implement his style through proven talent and following the right game plan.This internet “style advantage” talk is a nonsense that exists outside of boxing.

where is the proof that he had problems with relentless ike ibeabuchi types? He dropped a few decisions and was knocked out by ATG hitters but he fought a very long time and had a lot of fights.

Tua and Bryd were good heavyweight contenders..but who were their best wins? You make it sound like they were uncrowned champions or something. When you consider all the contenders out there at various times, Ernie Schaff, Fred Fulton, Ken Norton, Lou Nova, Eddie Machen, Jimmy Bivins, Trevor Berbick, nino Valdes, Renaldo Snipes, Golota, povetkin... those kinds of guys, do Tua and Bryd really stand out? Not really.

Walcott liked fighters who did the leading off. Ike did all the leading. That’s where he had his openings.

ike would come forward yes. But we can’t give him Sonny Liston like chances over Walcott because ike doesn’t have Sonny Listons pedigree. Ike beat two known fighters who were decent. That’s it.

who says Ike beat prime Bryd? He beat a lively Tua on points. That’s it.

you.

I remember Grant beating Golota. It was a decent enough win as I recall. Won the NABF title. Earned him a title shot against Lennox Lewis.

 

A robbery over Charles, who thrashed him in the rematch. And a close series vs Walcott, where he arguably didn't beat him either time while Walcott was prime. I'm more impressed by the win over a peak Tua and destruction of Byrd.

Yes, something that Tami Mauriello and Lee Savold were also capable of. I'm quite happy saying that Woodcock was a pretty useless contender.

I'm not arguing semantics. You know full well what I mean.

Yes. At a push, there's two names there who're more impressive than both Tua and Byrd. And Norton would arguably lose to both Byrd and Tua.

Funny how that worked out vs Marciano and Layne.

I thought you picked Walcott to beat Liston?

The proof is his losses to them.

Where?

The only advantage Grant had over Golota was sanity. A very weird win over Golota after getting bashed up isn't as impressive as out-brawling Tua or destroying Byrd.

Ibeabuci was way more proven than Grant. Comparing them is embarrassing.

 

you forget that Walcott also knocked Ray out. He won the series 2-1.

That’s a rather too dismissive and quite irrational. There is a lot of film out there on Woodcock and he was decent. He was the only man to put Lesnevich down for the full count.

I know full well that “style advantage” is a made up nonsense that exists outside of boxing.

it can never be proven if Bryd and Tua would beat Ken Norton. I could have mentioned another twenty contenders. Harry Wills for one. Tua and Bryd don’t stand out when you put their names beside them when you include alphabet champions. In the scheme of things they are only 50-50 with somrbody like Ernie Terrell. That’s their level.

I told you why didn’t I? Roughhousing inside fighters are less predictable. The very nature of their crudeness is that more unpredictable. A great many classy fighters can come unstuck.

I give Sonny a better chance than Ike of beating Walcott.

I think it is equally embarrassing to think ike was regarded anything more than Grant was regarded going into the Lewis fight. A lot of people saw Grant as the heir apparent to Riddick Bowe & Evander Holyfield to recapture the title for America. The pity is we know the result of the Lewis fight. We saw how how that went down. And it makes all those hopes look rather foolish now. What we don’t know is We don’t know how foolish it might look had Ike been allowed to fight Lewis in grants place and it was Grant who’s career ended without loss.

 

Entertaining discussion from Choklab and George. Food for thought