jack dempsey vs ken norton...

It's obviously bull**** about Walcott being washed up. He looks brilliant against Marciano.

 

Well Walcott looked great in at least two - KO7 Charles and LKO13 Marciano. UD15 Charles comes in between the two, and although that was a bit of a shitty fight by all accounts, Walcott was the better man against a Charles that had only lost to Walcott in something like his last thirty fights.

You seem to be (very sarcastically) saying that because fighters can look good even when they are "past it" (which kind of contradicts your position anyway, if the fighter he magically turned the clock back against was Marciano), but Walcott turned in one absolutely superb fight and one reportedly very good performance in the run up to Marciano I.

Then he was very good in Marciano I.

If you're basis for Walcott being past it is his looking very good in three consecutive fights including the one you are trying to say he was past it in, your words become kind of meaningless.


And Frazier and Ali both looked removed from their own peaks at Manilla, as well as being so by their own admission. So that's bull**** too.

 

In this one. He fought the perfect fight, pretty much, baited over and over again whilst edging Charles out in round after round.

He probably didn't look as great has he had in his last fight or his next one, but he cleanly outpointed Charles who was still pretty good.

They both looked absolutely exhausted for most of the fight and this had the inevitable wearing affect on their technique. Frazier, by his own testimony was way off the pace in the opening rounds. If you ever feel the need, watch I and then III back to back and you can see neither one is as good as they were in the FOTC, but if you're still confused, watch Ali fight Terrell.

They were both way, way past prime, Frazier especially was in bad trouble with both his blood-pressure and eyesight.

Did they look great? Well it as a great fight. Absolutely. They showed the flipside to the coin that made them famous showing incredible heart, courage and durability as well as a rarely equalled sheer bloody-mindedness. I think that's great, personally. But not in the sense you think you mean, I suspect.



The bottom line is, Walcott likely never looked better than he did one year before Marciano I knocking Charles out in 7. Aggressive, winning performance with an ATG KO tagged onto it. His second best performance? Arguable, but Marciano I might be it.

SO basically, you are arguing that a fighter who had his best filmed performance a year before, and arguably had his second best filmed performance in the fight under discussion was washed up

That's obviously kaka.


However, if you want to say that Walcott turned back the clock and looked great against Marciano whilst past it but that Marciano I was still one of his best performances, I have no problem with that. Seems convoluted, thin on the ground and absolutely meaningless as an opinion, but it's definitely one you are entitled to and I have no problem with it.

 

A gift?! It was a close, close fight and i've never seen a press card go more than one round one way or the other.

I saw a poll that had it to Charles by the rate of 21-20 in terms of writers opinions and another one that had it to him by 20-18-2.

Allowing two of the judges cards (one of them was a bit wide) it is literally the closest fight imaginable. How on earth is this a gift?


And you should read some more of the posts on this forum - it's possible that even a dizzying intellect like yours could be nourished.

 

Yes, the fourth bout.

It was a televised bout and those that watched it on television seemed to have it to Charles.

Those in the stadium were split almost 50.50. What is problematic about this for you? Why do you think it was a "total gift", what is that based upon? Arcel's opinion?

Even if Walcott looked like dog****, however (and he didn't), this would be the anomaly. Walcott looked sensational in March of 1951 and sensational in September of 1952.