Joe Walcott vs Tommy Hearns

Hearns too big, but more importantly has the reach and power to give Barbados Joe big headaches.

 

Normally I'd be inclined to say Hearns, based on his height advantage and dynamite right hand, but Barbados Joe was fighting guys who were much taller, MUCH bigger, and knocking them the **** out. He was also taking their shots, and had dynamite power in both hands.

Call me crazy, but with Hearns' shaky chin, Walcott in the early rounds.

 

To my knowledge, I'm not sure that films, etc.., even exist on Joe Walcott... And, if any do, they are very rough and obscure....

I know and realize that weights do NOT mean or guarantee anything in boxing and sports, but, it IS very hard to picture a good / great heavyweight getting beat by a welterweight champion.... Mediorce / below average heavies may indeed lose to a great 147 pounder.?.? That's very possible...

MR.BILL :bbb

 

It's very hard, but Joe Walcott proved it possible. He did it. You might not be able to picture it, but he did it. Repeatedly. That's good enough for me, and if he could handle such shots and not be fazed one bit, he could KO Tommy Hearns in brutal fashion. A fight between them would be Duran v. Hearns all over again... only this time Hearns would be the one getting KO'd.

Walcott's style was a swarming style, a swarmer who NEVER stopped throwing punches, and, if need be, he'd jump to land a shot, which he executed usually flawlessly. It didn't matter that he was 5 feet and a half: He could woop ass no matter what. He had the punch of a heavyweight in both hands and was decent defensivley, with an outstanding chin. An all-time great in mine or anybody else's book.

This content is protected

 

I just don't know there.... In my view, it looks to me that a proposed "Walcott-Hearns" dream fight would resemble a smaller version of "Mike Tyson vs. Buster Douglas."

Overall, Hearns is WAY greater than Buster Douglas.. BUT! Back in 1990, Buster Douglas put his whole act in one basket and had his **** wired tight... Douglas took apart a so-so together Mike Tyson....

However, styles make fights.... Douglas fought the PERFECT fight against the shorter Mike Tyson....:yikes

MR.BILL

 

I just read up on Joe Walcott for the hell of it. I didn't know that he failed / lost his two initial attempts at winning a world title at 135 & 147 pounds...... Walcott was TKO'd by George Lavigne and outboxed by Billy Smith just prior to 1900...

Walcott turned pro in 1890 at age 17. He fought until 1911 when he was age 38... Walcott fought a draw with Joe Gans in 1904, and then shot himself in one of his hands while screwing around at a party later that eve...

From 1905 to 1911, Walcott had moderate success as a fighter... You know, winning and losing along the way.?.? Walcott suffered (9) KO / TKO losses in his career....

I'll buy that Joe Walcott was a tough cookie, but to believe he was the greatest 147 pounder of all-time, NO WAY! It was proven that Walcott could be outboxed and stopped..... Walcott is still a great in the history books, but he was NOT the greatest 147 pounder of all-time....:deal

MR.BILL

 

Walcott's style would give Hearns endless trouble. And I am in no way denigrating Hearns when I say this - Hearns is one of my personal favorites, I am not going to lie to you - but I do agree that Walcott is the greatest 147 pounder who ever lived - as well as probably the hardest hitter of all time when you look at what he did and accomplished against far bigger men of his day.

Hearns would be a cakewalk compared to the some of the guys he fought.

Also, Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, James Corbett, and others ducked him on the basis that he was "too small". He knocked down sailor Tom Sharkey sparring and knocked out Joe Choynski, who was no tomato can by any means.