Jersey Joe Walcott vs Antonio Tarver

This would be a nightmare for Tarver the more I think about it. It would be like the Hopkins fight but much shorter and more brutal.

JJW KO 4 AT.

 

I agree 100%. He was an especially effective counterpuncher and very good defensively. I know he was never knocked out as a pro and I can only recall him being dropped by BHOP and Dawson. That counter left hand was deadly.

 

I finely worded response. You have clearly elucidated an opinion that i've tried but failed to do. I salute you, sir, and look forward to your future posts.

 

Do you not count the 20 losses as part of Joe’s resume?

You are cherry-picking and buying into the legend.

You think Joe Louis was in his prime in 1947? I mean, you actually believe that?

Not to mention Walcott lost a narrow decision, got a rematch and was KO’d.

He also lost twice to Ezzard and was repeatedly given title shots due to his mob connections and finally won one of them. His record in title fights was 2-6. What other fighter kept getting title shots in the one-belt days with repeated title losses?

Two years before facing Louis, Walcott (well fed at 191 pounds) lost to 11-15 Johnny Allen. In his prime (late bloomer), he lost back to back to Joey Maxim (tough guy, good chin, not too special and a light heavyweight) and Elmer Ray back-to-back.

Abe Simon stopped him.

If Joe Walcott was ever ‘starving,’ it was in the early 1930s when he was fighting at middle and light heavyweight. He filled out quite nicely as a fairly large heavyweight for the standards of his day, which is hard to do if you’re barely eating.

Walcott was ‘starving’ for mob connections, and when he got hooked up his career took off. Losses were ignored as if they didn’t happen, failures in title fights were rewarded with more title fights … because the people pulling the strings were going to make sure their guy eventually won the heavyweight championship if it took 100 title shots.

 

Maybe I'm being optimistic but certainly you're being pessimistic. Walcott is considered an ATG by most boxing analysts; I've never heard anyone describe Tarver as an ATG.

Whatever....we're not going to come to an agreement so let's let it lay there.

 

So hungry that his weigh ins were incredibly consistent allowing for the natural maturation of an athlete. From 1938 to 1953 he fought between 190 and 200.

But I forget that the Great Depression fell uniquely hard on Walcott's shoulders and that no other boxers were effected.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

Why all the sarcasm?
The Great Depression DID fall harder on some boxers than others-like Braddock.

Also someone can be malnourished & even overweight-the body is good at hording calories-do you doubt the stories that he sometimes did not have adequate food & could not train properly?

 

His knowledge of nutrition is limited to goats, cows and sheep.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words!

 

As I said, if you are addressing me, I very much doubt it after a certain point in the 1930s. He was not alone in being poor and scraping to eat well and survive during the Great Depression. Is the idea that Walcott was eating dirt and the guys he fought during the hardest economic times in U.S. history were gorging on filet mignon, lobster and caviar, lol?

He outboxed Abe Simon and got caught with a right that laid him out cold. Years later, he outboxed Rocky Marciano and got crumbled by a big shot. What does nutrition have to do with that?

Joe getting a mob manager who used his connections to probably buy Joe some decisions (that’s what mob guys did) and also get him title shot after title shot after title shot no matter how many times he kept losing them had a greater impact than him having more corn flakes for breakfast, haha.

In fact, you can find contemporary accounts of Walcott’s heyday where he is noted to be a much lighter eater than other top fighters. In training camp. He skipped lunch in training entirely. This is when he had backing and bankroll to eat whatever he wanted. So he thrived in his best years without having an all-you-can-eat-buffet pass.

We do not have film of early so-so Walcott to know if he looked weak or emaciated, but we do have his weights, and unless he had a distended belly like a starving child in Africa, the weights do tell us a story that he was not starving to death. It takes calories to maintain weight — if you do not believe me, fast for 2 weeks and see if you lose weight, stay the same or gain weight. Joe maintained and gained weight.

Multiple things can be true: 1) During certain lean years, he probably did have trouble putting food on the table; 2) During those same years, times were hard and his opponents probably were not eating like kings — but no one went back to ask them and make excuses for them; 3) Walcott was 100% managed by a mobster during his best years … and still lost plenty of fights.

 

I was responding to Seamus, as you can see above.
But you make some good points.

Of course he was not starving to death, but he could still have had harder times than other boxers without decent management.
However I only read on this website about his earlier hard times, & a Google search did not reveal mob ties immediately, & it is not something I was aware of.
Nor did I know that he was a light eater.
Sounds like a certain Italian huge former circus strongman in these respects!

I will defer to your knowledge & see if others have information to contest anything you say.

 

This was pretty funny.

 

Somehow have managed to keep myself in top shape as I see 60 coming up. I'm sure that was all through good genetics.