James Toney ~VS~ Jersey Joe Walcott

Walcott was just a journeyman, who accidentally won a title. He might have done some tricks to an old slowed down Joe Louis and to crude Marciano, but lost all four fights with them.

 

Whatever... Shows how little you really know.

I'll be lookin' for a great Russian........... When I find one, you'll be the first to know about it Don't hold your breath... I've no desire to see an idiot wait too long.

 

Walcott's record vs ranked opponents: 12 wins 13 losses. Several of those wins are controversial too, and 5 more losses were to unranked opponents too.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Most observers thought he was robbed against Joe Louis.

Nobody ever "accidentaly won a title".

Walcott was more than a journeyman. Bad management combined with poverty explains his spotty record in the early years.
Black prelim fighters in the 1930s weren't paid well, were vulnerable to bad decisions, and often told to fight "handcuffed" or to take dives for extra cash.
Talented fighters like Walcott were used as cheap late-notice substitutes, and had to work long hours in manual labour jobs to feed themselves and their families.

When Walcott hit his stride with better management he proved capable of beating or competing with the 3 best fighters of the time - Louis, Charles and Marciano.

I'm not saying he didn't lose a few that he shouldn't have, or that he always performed well, but there are enough quality results to convince he was a true elite fighter, and he looks damn good on the films, IMO.

 

Utter nonsense. At his best he was a fine fighter who'd give most top contenders from any era an extremely honest fight indeed.

 

He might give them a good fight, but he'd lose a lot more often than he wins against top fighters of other eras. That's pretty much the definition of journeyman.

 

walcott was far from a journeyman. he lost 6 times by ko (3 to great punchers) his record proves he is a great fighter no doubt.

james fought every type of fighter you could possibly think of, from middleweight to heavyweight. he's seen every kind of trick in the book.
the closest to walcott was definetly mccallum. i have got all 3 fights but have only seen the 1st one. and in that fight toney never had any trouble with mccallum, i dont know how mike got away with a draw that night. he was almost sparked out a few times.

i just cant see how jersey joe walcott out of all the people would beat toney by UD!
imo james toney is a far improved version of ezzard charles and you know what he did to walcott.

for example a 39 (i think) year old walcott struggled to keep marciano at bay, where as i see toney giving marciano a really bad beating at the same age weight etc. now im gonna get some stick for saying all this all the 'you dont know nutting about boxing' rubbish. but i know my stuff.

the only guys that i see giving toney trouble isnt guys who were similar size with alot of skill, cos toney can out manouver anyone if he was right but guys who moved alot and were rangy like ali, jack johnson, etc because toney doesnt move his feet too much, he can, just doesnt.

from watching toney i can tell you that anyone who stands infront of toney would never have a easy night:nono. joe louis tried standing infront of walcott and was dropped twice (with the shoulder roll right counter) if he fought like that against toney he would get stopped. :yep

now im really gettin on ppl's nerves, right? how can joe get stopped by middleweight toney? if you watch toney hit evander holyfield with them thudding shots, yoo'd know that nobody can take them all night, not even holyfield.
guys like louis (if he was stubborn and didnt take a backward step), marciano, and even dempsey. especially dempsey. he was an awesome fighter but he did things that would make it really easy for toney.


conclusion: after watching fighters from all eras, James Toney is the most perfect fighter in the history of boxing 9i can go into detail on why if you want? now your thinking this guys gone nuts) he stood a chance against any fighter.

:good

 

People seem to judge Walcott more off his first career than his latter exploits.

Guy literally took fights during times where he was food deprived, in poverty and starving.

Give me a ****ing break.

 

There's nothing to back up a myth of him taking fights starving and food deprived.

 

Far more than your bull**** accusations that Walcott's a journeyman, that's for sure.

 

well jersey joe beat ezzard charles, and ezzard is imo better than toney

definitely walcott on this one but it would be a dull encounter

 

Walcott beat an old washed-up version of Charles, who was a natural 175-pounder in the first place.

 

That is a ridiculous reply, Walcott actually was robbed in first Louis fight your info, and was a solid contender before winning title. He did have long layoffs early, and did not really come into his own till Louis fights, being slow to mature. To call him a journyman is an insult to yourself more than to Walcott.

 

From late 1940's on Charles was a legit heavy who would go down to lightheavy for some fights to make the money.