It is entirely too easy to go overboard while broadcasting what you think is some proprietary knowledge... A loss is still a loss. A fighter that has a nose for losses is still less of a winner. It's all a matter of degrees, or course, and there are setbacks pre or post prime or learning experiences. But at some point, the scoreboard don't lie.
More like boxrec bums. I bet some of them can barely use a keyboard correctly, yet would still insult a great fighter.
Folks are so damn frothingly anxious to pat themselves on the back for what they think is proprietary knowledge and are willing to OVER emphasize mitigating factorrs on one competitor's behalf. Congratulations. You are truly brilliant folks. But everyone who is anyone and most who aren't knows Walcott's story. Big deal. He had some close calls. He was desperate and worked a day job and was on the dole. So were and are tons of fighters. Yes, it is important to recognize and know these things. But, also, scoreboard is scoreboard.
It'd be interesting to go through JJW's earlier losses. I'd tried looking for a report of his fight with Abe Simon. There's a Newark newspaper on Google news archive, and the one from the following week had a large sports section, with a load of stuff on boxing, but alas I couldn't find that Walcott Simon fight, though maybe I was being stupid.
I found mention of the result but no details. I did find a Jack Blackburn quote I rather fancied... "Jack Dempsey couldn't have knocked out Joe Louis in two and a half year or two and a half years."
Sure thing. It is the benchmark of success. One can see patterns and proclivities. The discussion can lead from there. Now, if you want to describe a prime version of Fighter X by his performances pre or post prime, then we have an issue.
I disagree. I think that a fighters win loss ratio is influenced by a whole myriad of factors, of which their ability is only one of them. I think that any fighters win loss ratio will suffer substantially if they regularly fight under unfavorable terms. Do you think that Joe Louis wouldn't have picked up a few losses if he hadn't had a manager for half of his career?
Sounds like he was boxing well until he got starched by a single blow: "Abe Simon Kayos Jersey Joe Walcott," Central New Jersey Home News, Feb. 13, 1940 "After taking a boxing lesson from Jersey Joe Walcott, 192, for five sessions, Abe Simon, 256-lb New Yorker, crashed through with a terrific right to the mouth to knock out the Merchantville Negro in 2:32 of the sixth heat of the scheduled feature eight round boxing bout at Laurel Garden. Walcott hardly moved as referee Paul Cavalier counted him out."
A fighter doesn't win on ability alone. He wins largely by being a winner. Now, if you want to argue that fighter X had the cuffs on, then I will certainly see the record in different terms.
Walcott was very good but he wasn’t great. He received numerous chances at the crown far more than most contenders received. He could really punch and he had a very cutesy style that people love on tape. However he fought a greatly diminished Louis and after losing a debatable deciscion, he got the rematch and he got ko’d. Similar situation with Marciano he fought a great fight highly competitive and got ko’d - he gets an immediate rematch and he gets blasted out in 1 round. Even in many of his best wins they are of the SD, MD variety - he never clearly separates himself from the pack. I think that is a clear indication that he either fought at the level of his competition or he fought at his level which was good during a good era but just shy of being great. And that’s leaving out his entire early career where he was clearly not the same fighter (however he is afforded that luxury that many fighters don’t even get that a large part of his record gets wiped away from his total body of work)
