Ike Ibeabuci vs Jersey Joe Walcott

You make a very good case for Burns!

Using his superior speed to move in and out of range while outboxing the ponderous Wilder, might just do the job. I think, I'm beginning to see the light, and the more compelling evidence you present, the more I'm inclined to admit, that you probably have been right all along. Shame on me for doubting your superior knowledge!

 

Come on, look at the ringside reports.

It was not a robbery, it was more a controversial decision.

Hart was the only man who did that, in a period of a decade!

 

You are taking offence at something, where I have already changed my position, to align with yours!

I have provided you with a detailed explanation, of why I held my previous position, and why I changed it.

I am starting to think, that you have a victim complex!

 

I once read quite a few stories and reports on that fight. I probably still have some of them downloaded and saved, somewhere on my computer. That’s the basis of my (independent) assessment that Jackson got a raw deal for the obvious reasons and that—even more obviously—Hart wasn’t impressive in the fight. It’s pretty obvious that the deck was seriously stacked against Johnson—nobody wanted him to win. Do you disagree that Johnson outboxed and “out-hurt” Hart? If so, on what basis?

And some of the writeups were obviously and horribly biased, btw, due to either hometown/sectional bias or racism (or both).

I don’t think Hart would’ve “beaten” him again if they’d fought 20 times.

 

Your explanation of how Burns could have defeated Wilder is too silly to be taken seriously. So when a real debate with you is impossible - what else is left than to treat it with sarcasm?

 

And I'm starting to think, that you aren't really as intelligent, as I originally thought!

 

I know. He's even smarter, and dreamier.
Janitor #1.

 

It’s a weird fight. Walcott has the resume. But Ike never lost and proved his chin and power against a couple of solid men. Tough decision

 

No I don't, but scoring was weighted more heavily in favor of aggression back then.

Without footage, we have to conclude that it might have been within the bounds of reasonable interpretation at the time.

I don’t think Hart would’ve “beaten” him again if they’d fought 20 times.[/QUOTE]
I would be inclined to agree.

Johnson would definitely have adapted in a rematch, and I don't think Hart would have brought much new to the table.

 

What strategy would you suggest then?

 

There's really no strategy, that would make a Burns win likely - and the fact that you, at some point, actually FAVOURED him to beat Wilder, is nothing short of mind-boggling!

 

From the reports I've read, it does seem that the only basis on which Hart won was aggression.

In fairness this was announced before the fight so they were aware it was going to be scored that way going in. That said given it was a counterpuncher in Johnson, against a hyper aggressive brawler in Hart, there was no question who would win in that metric.

On top of that Johnson seems to have given a lackluster, half hearted effort. In fairness to Hart, Hart does seem to have done some things well like dealing with Johnson's uppercut. It certainly wasn't Hart's only notable win, though several (like West, Creedon and Root) were against pretty small opponents I recall he probably deserved the win in his draw with Gardner. He had the better of Gus Ruhlin and Joe Choynski, though both were past it.

Hart was certainly a top contender, but I don't agree with some of the high ratings of him. And I find it hard to look past the fact that Jeffries would have defended against him if he was seen as a more compelling challenger, so in some ways only won the title because he wasn't seen as that good.

 

You're really looking into this deeply. It's perfectly fine to pick a fighter who was clearly capable from a long time ago to beat a fighter who at the time was a gangly unproven mess, who had the technical ability of a fish. And since, Jan has changed his opinion.

You've never held an opinion of an unproven prospect and changed it when he proved himself?

 

Byrd didn't win more than a round against Iker. He was ran through like he was nothing.

Jersey Joe would last longer because he had good legs but eventually after too mush size and pressure would fall asunder.

 

Yes, I have often changed my opinion on fighters - but how do later events change jan's opinion at the point in time, when he made the pick? They obviously don't! At a time when Wilder had blasted out everybody he had met, and was just 3 fights away from beating Stiverne for the WBC title, Jan thought he couldn't beat a midget from the first decade of the last century. Now he's of course entitled to such an opinion - as I'm entitled to question it, if I think it makes no sense.

By the way, as you of course know, Wilder didn't flatten Stiverne like all his previous opponents - but boxed his way to a comfortable points win, using a fairly decent jab in the process. Now Wilder is obviously no Willie Pep... but the idea that he's this uncoordinated clown with "the technical ability of a fish", doesn't really hold water.