Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Holmes most likely a UD. In Walcott's prime it took some pretty stout punchers to knock him out and I'm not sold that Larry could although it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Larry will have to work his ass off in this one, though. It wasn't that Walcott was so good (although he absolutely was good), as much as on his best day he could make you look bad.

 

Walcott lost almost 1 out of every 3 times he entered the ring. He was described repeatedly by contemporary reports as "a journeyman"...

but he is going to beat Larry Holmes, perhaps the 3rd greatest heavy who ever lived?

 

Potentially yes.

He would be by far the best fighter that Holmes shared a ring with, before he lost to Tyson.

It would be more than reasonable to make Holmes favorite of course.

 

Head to head? Like hell...

I would take Norton, Spinks, Spoon, Cooney and probably Weaver, Snipes and Shavers to beat Walcott. He lost with incredible regularity, and did so guys who weren't diminished, undersized or just never that good.

 

We have had that debate a few times.

Norton might well have been a stylistic foil for Walcott, that is a fair point.

When Walcott was on his rampage in the late 40s, when he practically cleaned out the top ten, I would certainly favor him over the other men you named.

 

Who exactly was he beating in the late 40's? A frail Louis beat him. Maxim, Ray, Layne and Charles beat him.

He can hang his hat on getting shafted against the aforementioned frail Louis and scoring one of the prettiest one-punch KO's over a 182 pound Ezz. I don't even know how to draw up some hypothetical of a parity with what Holmes accomplished.

 

Yes.
Nobody ranks Larry Holmes that high you're hallucinating. Speak for yourself.

 

Nostalgia aside, but this match is too much for Joe. Larry's job as well as chin would make it impossible for Joe to beat this.

 

Actually more than a few here, including me, rank him #3 ATG heavy.

 

While I think people hold Holmes on a pedestal he’s never quite proven he necessarily deserves, he was by far the superior heavyweight to Walcott and far more proven. Walcott doesn’t even have a styles advantage so I can’t see him doing much.

 

He spent most of his career boxing on the side to support his family, he wasn't well handled and didn't focus solely on boxing until he was in his 30s. He was also robbed in many of those fights.

 

I do, I have only Ali and Louis ahead of him.

 

Again I think Holmes who l also have No. 3 beats him but it won’t be an easy night for him, plus Walcott was a whole different fighter from about 1944 on when he got serious. He’s not in my top 20 but I respect him a lot.

 

Yes, the rest of the boxers of that era and eras beyond had it easy. None had to support their families or went hungry or had second jobs or fought in wars or dodged death on the daily...

The Walcott Myth is one of the more ludicrous in the fertile soil of ludicrous thought that is that least rigorous study called boxing history.

 

I like Holmes in this match, his jab, control of distance and speed is a little more than JJW is used to overcoming....Holmes was a smart fighter who knew how to control a fight. JJW excelled with fighters he could get within reach of a little easier and use his cutesy tricks to outwork