Johnson rated Walcott the greatest fighter of all

I am not a Walcott scholar but I think he was past thirty when he fought very close fights w Langford and Gans, two exceptional fighters .. he most likely was already past his best as few pressure fighters aren't with that kind of mileage .. I am not here to know Greb who was without question exceptional .. I am just thinking through a case that Walcott at his very best was in the same class of fighter and certainly more dangerous .. I do also feel that in Gans and Langford he fought two of the ten best pound for pound fighters of all time past his own prime on near even or even terms ..

 

In Graeme Kent's "The Great White Hope" he mentions an article in the Milwaukee Evening Wisconsin dated Feb 8th 1900 .The article accuses Tom O Rourke,Walcott's manager of choreographing several bouts his stable of fighters were involved in.
"The following is a list of some of the battles that have taken place within a year over which there have been charges of crookedness,wrong decisions or some kind of foul play.
In all of them Tom O Rourke has been a prominent factor, either as a manager of one of the principals or manager of the club.
In several cases it has been clearly shown that the battles were fakes,expressly made for betting purposes."

"Walcott v Lavigne San Francisco Oct 29th 1897
Sharkey v Corbett Lennox Club Nov 22 1898
West v Bonner lennox Club Jan17 1899
Walcott v Creedon Lennox Club Apr 25 1899"


Not conclusive proof but it indicates there was some suspicion as to the bona fides of several of the fights.

 

The" Saginaw Kid" is a grieviously underated fighter imo.

 

An therin lies the problem with this and many other of your opinions about early fighters.

It is based on a quick glance at their record.

 

Clearly Johnson was very drunk. Think it couldn't happen?

 

If Greb actually beats his toughest opponents and Walcott doesn't then Ill give that plumb to Walcott. Walcott didn't split a series with the guys you named, he drew in fights that most reports had him losing. He never once beat them. Period. Greb did.

Its odd to suggest that its a leap of face to suggest Greb was better than Walcott but not the other way around because we have to rely on the written word in regards to Greb. I look forward to this film you must have on Walcott (besides the one where he is an old half blind janitor). In the meantime we can rely on something more than your imagination: in less time Greb had more fights, more fights against champions, contenders, and HOFers, less losses and draws, etc. Its not a leap of faith for me to suggest Greb was better in the least. Stack Greb and Walcott next to each other in any criteria you want related to boxing and Greb comes out higher every time. Id match Greb with Walcott any day of the week whether its in terms of impact, standing, H2H, accomplishments, record, resume, whatever. So far all Ive heard is that Walcott fought (but failed to beat Gans and Langford) so he must be better. That doesn't hold water for me. I love Gans and Langford as much as the next guy but Id be a lot more impressed had Walcott actually beat them (multiple times maybe). He didn't. I also don't see why I should regard Langford as greater than Walker or Gans as greater than Gibbons. Both Langford and Walcott were p4p giants. Gans and Gibbons were both boxing masters who had an impact of the development of the sport for decades and who were both likely peerless in their day.

 

No what Chuvalo was was a whiny frontrunner who went into fights more concerned with preserving his reputation for not going down than actually letting it all hang out to win. Ive got every s**** of film on the guy that exists and when you go into a fight simply come forward behind a high guard without making much of an attempt to fight once you realize you cant win then don't tell me "he always came to fight." You aren't going to win that argument with me. He was a Ross Purrity or an Oliver McCall who spent large swaths of a fight totally inactive and falling behind on points because he didn't want to actually put forth the effort necessary to win and possibly get countered. Then when he would lose he made some lame excuse or *****ed about how he was robbed when in reality he had nobody to blame but himself.

Regardless, my point stands. Its not a fighters losses that define his greatness its his wins. Walcott didn't win the fights that some on here seem so quick to give him credit for.

 

You are usually very good at this and often pull out some surprising results. How would you rate their best KO wins?

 

I'm not saying I disagree with some of this. The Foreman and Frazier fights, but Chuvalo took it took Ali, and called out Sonny Liston.

 

Im sure everyone is glad to know you have elected yourself their spokesman.

And according to quite a few contemporaries he is the best in his weight class. Just as Gans isn't the best in his weight class according to quite a few of his contemporaries. Its a matter of opinion. There is and was plenty of criticism of Gans in his day just as there is/was of Gibbons. In reality both of them had an extremely important impact on the sport and both brought the sport forward. It also happens that at least as far as skill was concerned, if not outright h2h matchups, both were damn near unbeatable at their weight in their prime. Yes, I think Gibbons was every bit as good at MW as Gans was at LW.

My guard? No. Anyone who knows me knows Ive always given a world of credit to Mike Gibbons, who I think was one of the greatest fighters in history and who had an incredible influence on the sport for decades. I realize he isn't Australian so you know absolutely nothing about him but you should read up on him. If you understood just how good he was and just how respected he was it might not be such a bitter pill for you to swallow that Les Darcy ducked him...

Actually it was a much easier pick for me to compare Gans and Gibbons than Walker and Walcott or Langford but when you really think about it its easy to see. Walker beat better fighters than Walcott and was more accomplished at more weights. With Langford it depends on just how much credit you give him for all of those chitlin circuit fights. Ive never been impressed with the circular logic that McVey was great because he beat Jeanette who was great because he beat McVey etc etc. These guys were all fighting each other but when you delve deep into their record and look at when they actually got to cross over and fight other contenders out of their circuit the idea that they were head and shoulders above anyone else doesn't hold up. Langford lost and drew to plenty of guys he probably shouldn't have and did so at every stage of his career. He wasn't unbeatable but his actual accomplishments aren't any better than Walker's IMO. Both guys started small. Both guys moved up successfully. Both guys were great boxers and great punchers both guys defeated numerous contenders from all the way up to HW. I don't think its a stretch to suggest Walker was on par with Langford at all. You almost have to ignore everything wrong with Langford's career and give him credit for a lot of stuff he MIGHT have accomplished if given the opportunity in order to make the argument that he stands higher than Walker. Because film and his record don't support it alone.

What in anything Ive written makes you think Im biased against Walcott's era? Because I think Walcott was not the greatest fighter of all time Im biased against him? LOL.

What exactly did Walcott or especially Choynski do in their careers that makes them so far ahead of Jack Dillon???

Oh wait wait, I get it. If Dillon was no good then Klaus, who beat him in an advertised title elimination cant be given credit as a champion and thus Darcy's phony lineage has more strength. Gee how convenient.

 

Gee, I don't know, which one do you think could jump the highest? Which one was taller? Who could run faster? A better question would be what do any of those stats (and KOs) have to do with their all time standing or greatness which is what we were discussing? Are you falling back on Walcott's KOs because the real meat and potatoes of his record don't hold up to Greb's? That's what I would suspect.