Jersey Joe Walcott vs Antonio Tarver

The dancing around Walcott's poor performances is almost as impressive as those useless steps he employed in the ring.

 

Look up Felix Bocchicchio — there is zero dispute that (a) he was a mobster, (b) he took over management of Joe Walcott when Jersey Joe was all but retired as a journeyman, or (c) that Joe suddenly and miraculously rose through the ranks and got handed title shot after title shot with no regard to results in the ring.

 

Guys, this doesn't go much different than Jim Jeffries VS Joe Martin.

 

Southpaw angles, and Tarver did use the angles very well
Height 6-2 v 6'0
Reach
Handspeed
1 punch Power
Natural bodyweight - 200-230lbs walking around weight

He also had the advantage of a weightlifting coach and equipment, putting him through cleans and jerks - the exercises best used for speed and explosiveness, which made him more explosive than Walcott was. The advantage of modern supplements and yes PEDs. Guess what these make you stronger and faster

It's pretty much impossible to predict this fight because there's no way to know how someone as inconsistant as Walcott would do against a taller rangier southpaw with KO power when he'd never faced that type of opponent before.

BTW belittling Tarver's opposition makes you look either ignorant or biased. He fought the best men of his day many of them world champions and you've just discounted them as nobodies.

 

You're praising his skills as being due to PEDS? Ok. I guess you have a point. It's too bad that Walcott had to rely on his natural ability.

I've shown how many HOFers Walcott fought vs Tarver. 5 (multiple times) to 2 (1 time in a loss to Hopkins). A troll in here disparaged the HOF but those 5 were genuine greats.

Whatever. We're not going to agree or come to any agreement.

 

We're discussing who would win, I gave you a long list of Tarver's advantages

The flaws in your argument is the Hall of Fame. The Boxing HOF is a museum that can take 30-40 years to induct boxers. So many boxers from the 2000s may get inducted in the future, so it's not a very good barometer given how close we are to that fighting era. For instance Nigel Benn, who boxed in the 80s and 90s is only being inducted in 2026

It also puts in boxers who are famous who generate the biggest crowds over the best boxers. Auturo Gatti is in the HOF. Kalambay, Eubank, Herol Graham, Sven Ottke are not in the HOF and all are far better than Gatti

Maxim is in the HOF but Booker, Chase, Lytell and Tiger Jack Fox are not while arguably have better resumes while competing in the same era

Tiger Jack Fox is probably the best example of why 'HOF' matters little to a match up. He went 2-0 against Jersey Joe and never made the HOF

Corrales is in the HOF but Castillo is not.

Tarver is in the HOF but Glen Johnson is not, despite them going 1-1 and both beating Jones jr. Johnson was a man who fought everyone he could, often with unfair decisions in opponents back yards.

The HOF doesn't tell you how good a boxer is dependent of era. You should be able to look at the merits of a fighters resume without needing to look at the HOF

 

Yeah because beating
Baksi
Bivins
Sheppard
Elmer Ray
Maxim
Harold Johnson
Lee Murray
And more
And getting robbed against Joe accounts to “no regard to results in the ring”

 

Look at his 20 losses.

TWENTY losses.

He lost to an 11-15 guy AFTER he got his new manager and had no ‘he’s eating dirt, starving to death’ excuses.

 

Was an 8 rounder that he avenged next fight. His other losses after came from HOF hw champs and number 1 contenders many of which he avenged. You should be judging people at their best. With his list of wins it ranks extremely high amongst all HWs. Had he gotten his rightful decision against Louis many would have differing opinions of the man or had he not had the audacity of losing to Marciano. Walcotts record is an oddity in boxing but it’s not unheard of. Max Baer and Jimmy Young come to mind of men who took early losses. Even Charles and Moore had a few.

 

Assuming prime Jersey Joe Walcott at heavyweight against prime Antonio Tarver, with Tarver coming in around 180–190 pounds, I’d favor Walcott about 60–40.
Tarver would be dangerous because he was a tall southpaw with a very good straight left, solid timing, and enough power to punish mistakes. Walcott’s rhythm could be awkward, but Tarver’s southpaw stance would also force Walcott to solve a different angle than he usually saw.
The bigger issue is that Walcott was a proven natural heavyweight, generally around the mid-to-high 190s, and he had much more experience dealing with heavyweight strength and punching. He also had superior feints, footwork, and counterpunching variety. Tarver was excellent, but his best work was at light heavyweight.
I’d expect Tarver to have success early with the jab and straight left, especially when Walcott gets too cute with his movement. But over 12–15 rounds, I think Walcott starts reading him, drawing the left, and countering with the right hand.
Most likely: Walcott by competitive decision, with a late stoppage possible if Tarver tires or starts getting caught cleanly.

 

So Jersey Joe loses to an 11-15 guy and the answer is ‘he won the rematch!’

Splitting with a guy with a losing record isn’t something to brag about.

Joe Louis beats Walcott via a close (let’s say disputed) decision and then knocks Walcott out in the rematch and in this case the first fight is the one you want to focus on (which Joe didn’t even win).

And no, all of Walcott’s losses were not to heavyweight champ Hall of Famers and No. 1 contenders.

 

Amazing you keep focusing on the one 8 rounder drop. But not a peep about the amazing wins. That earned him his respect amongst the division

 

It continually amuses me that Walcott's contemporaries viewed him as an overachieving journeyman, a guy who basically outlived his competition and momentarily shone in a vacant era, while commentators here view him as some wizard of lost arts, unbeatable by mere mortals. Carry on, though. It makes for a good laugh.

 

We are talking about his resume. His resume includes losses and wins.

He didn’t lose to an 11-15-1 guy in his fifth fight … he was at nearly 40 pro fights and fully formed, had a (mob) manager bankrolling him so no excuses about not having proper nutrition. He just lost to a below-average guy. That’s telling.

He had some nice wins but he also lost to those same guys.

Walcott had some nice skills but he was remarkably inconsistent and he needed a mob manager to keep getting him title shots even though he kept losing them or else he’d be at best a minor footnote in boxing history.

 

Every shot was earned except the third shot against Charles and even then out four of five fights he beat Tandberg, Hein ten Hoff, Harold Johnson, Agramate and Schkohr (none of those names are easy to spell lol)