Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Didn't say he wasn't kid. You seem a little cranky, have you had your morning coffee today?

 

Cranky over boxing that happened 50+ years ago ? No I don't get emotional on a boxing forum.

Walcott lost 20 times if he had to fight 20 world title fights fighting consistently against top 10 ranked opposition, more than likely Walcott would end up with a few losses to Holmes's opposition.

Your discrediting Holmes for "winning" fights one of them he won by an almost shut out vs Berbick, yet on flip side your excusing Walcott for his "losses" which pretty much says it all to me.

I think logically I'll go with the more proven Heavyweight who was a more consistent winner against world class opposition in Holmes.

 

I somehow doubt that. I dunno you do seem like the emotional type.
Which of Holmes opposition would beat a '45-'47 Walcott?
Walcott basically cleaned out the HW division. The reason why he kept getting title shots was because he'd beaten everyone else and the champs never beat him convincingly.
Facts are facts mate. There's nothing I said about his wins that was untrue or mean-spirited towards him. I'm actually quite fond of Larry Holmes.
Analysing the circumstances in which he lost those fights is not the same as excusing the losses.
Holmes' two memorable wins in his prime (Norton and Shavers) are against 35 year olds - one of whom couldn't beat a Parkinson's-ridden Ali. Both whom were not as good as Walcott was at that age. Neither of them were particularly complicated stylistically and they still almost best him. Do the math.
Holmes fought in one of the dullest eras in HW history.

 

In Holmes' era Layne would be an undersized, out of shape, slow and not particularly powerful heavyweight. This matters in head to head match-ups. Even Jack Dempsey, Layne' fistic fairy godfather, complained that he wouldn't train and that he was too weak. He did have fighting heart, I'll give him that. But he looks decidedly unimpressive on film. This is part of the bigger picture between these two eras. In the first, you had holdovers from pre-war days hanging on and looking for a payday, especially in the depleted heavy ranks. In the latter era, you have a generation of fighters inspired by Ali and the 1976 Oly successes many trained under programs Ali sponsored. We had the blossoming of modern, full size athletes, not just desperate beet farmers with nowhere else to go.

 

Yet the only great HW that era produced was Larry Holmes...

 

I haven't checked Walcott's whole career in detail... but it always amazes me how "mediocre" his resume is, in quantitative terms.

Just looking at the numbers... 20 losses to 49 is literally journeyman territory.

It also baffles me how his losses are more on less evenly distributed along his career. It is not like he just started losing during his twilight period when he was past his prime.

Furthermore, taking away the years 1945 - 1946 actuallly Walcott neved had a long winning streak.

Anyway, the Walcott's mistery deepens.

 

Emotional because i don't agree with your Walcott agenda opinion which is a minority opinion i might add ? got you. It's called an "opinion" and i disagree with yours aswell as some of your examples nothing more nothing less.

You called me a "kid" to try and mock me and i let it go.

Well considering Walcott lost 20 times and wasn't a consistent winner he could very well lose to Norton, Witherspoon, M.Spinks, Shavers, if he catches him, Williams how many 6'5 fighters with 84 inch reach did Walcott fight ? Cooney 6'6 with power would be a major threat to Walcott.

Walcott lost to a fighter with 11-15 record in that time frame he certainly isn't staying undefeated for a 7 year period fighting consistently vs top 10 ranked opponents.

You said Holmes had some shaky rounds vs Berbick, when mostly everyone had Holmes winning every single rounds including one judge who had it a shut out. If it was the other way around you'd be praising Walcott for a good performance for shutting out a top 10 ranked contender. Instead most of your posts i've seen in this thread are excusing Walcott's losses, yet in another sentence you're discrediting Holmes for "winning fights" do you not see how failed that logic is ?

Norton of the Holmes fight would have a great chance of beating Walcott, and Shavers was on the best run of his career at that stage and his ATG power makes him a major threat even though Walcott is the superior boxer.

"neither of them are particularly complicated" mate Muhammad Ali who is considered the GOAT Heavyweight couldn't figure out Norton in 3 fights and your saying his style is not complicated ?

Walcott lost to Abe Simon, Rex Layne, are these guys any better than Norton or Shavers ? hell Walcott lost to 11-15 fighter in the time frame of 45-47, when you asked me who of Holmes's opposition would beat Walcott during that time frame.

 

Larry gets him eventually, but Joe would have him wondering 'who the hell is this old guy'??

 

I am going with Larry Holmes over Jersey Joe Walcott by Decision in 15 rounds. I think Jersey Joe was crafty enough at his best to have his moments against Larry and last through the 15 rounds. I am giving Larry Holmes the win by a fairly close but Unanimous Decision. Maybe 144-141-ish?

 

'Agenda'? What a strange choice of words.
The tone of your responses makes me think you might be a little vexed but it's alright kid.
Gerry Cooney the unathletic, left-hook heavy novice that Holmes took 13 rounds to put away? None of the guys you mentioned had skills comparable to Walcott's.
Walcott fought and defeated Ten Hoff who had an 84 inch reach.
You conveniently use the one scorecard that was a shutout. When the other judges scored the fight closer. There were rounds were Berbick troubled him and turned the fight into a brawl.
I don't like to repeat myself: analysing the circumstances around his fights and career is not the same as excusing them. I did the same with Holmes, I analysed circumstances behind his split-decision wins against Witherspoon and Norton. One of whom was at the beginning of his career and other whom was at the end. Also pointed out the fact that a half-dead Ali had less trouble with Shavers than he did. You haven't offered a description of how I discredited Holmes you seem to think that typing it enough times will make it true.
So you think that Shavers and Norton would've beaten Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles and Elmer Ray, and gone to war with Marciano if they traded places with Walcott?
Muhammad Ali couldn't figure out Joe Frazier either. Fraziers style wasn't exactly complicated, you knew exactly what he was gonna do. Same as Norton.
Abe Simon went 13 rounds with a prime Joe Louis. Rex Layne has victory over a prime Ezzard Charles. They were both tough. I don't see any evidence to suggest that Norton and Shavers would've beat them easily or even at all.

 

I can't believe this is a serious question, Holmes was 6'3 215 -220 pounds with a 81 inch reach , Walcott was 6'0' 195 -200 pounds with a 74 inch reach. Holmes was ko'ed once by Tyson after a 2 year layoff at the age of 38. Walcott was ko'ed by Tiger Jack Fox supposedly in Joe's prime years. Holmes uses his seven inch reach advantage to spear Walcott constantly and any counters Walcott hits him with does nothing. Walcott gets stopped somewhere around the 7th or 8th round when Larry decides to close the show

 

Tone of my responses ? you accused me of being angry which is false all i did was disagree with your opinion, and then you called me a "kid" to try and mock me or to try and be clever. And now your doing it again because of the "tone of my response" i think you need to take your own advice and take some coffee and get a grip.

Gerry Cooney huge punching power with considerable height, reach, weight, advantages over Walcott ? yes i would say he's a threat to Walcott. The fact a prime Holmes who was at his best took 13 rounds to finish off Cooney is to Cooney's credit, i mean you're the one excusing Walcott for his losses why doesn't Cooney get credit for going 13 tough rounds with a peak Holmes ?

Was all of Walcott's 20 losses against fighters who were more skillful than him ? 49-20 is a modest record bordering on journeyman level. Yes there is some serious quality in there that doesn't tell the whole story, but Walcott still did lose to far worse fighters than some of Holmes's title challengers.

"Holmes didn't have much difficulty in winning a 15-round unanimous decision over Berbick at Caesars Palace Sports Pavilion Saturday night."

That's one write up of the fight.

Most people have Holmes winning atleast 12 or 13 rounds in the fight, the unofficial scorecard AP scorecard at ringside scored it 147-138 one judge had it 15-0 as i said. And the other two judges had Berbick winning 4 rounds which is a tad generous to him.

Berbick gave a good account of himself but Holmes was never troubled or looked in danger of losing, and despite being made to work for the win it was a relatively comfortable win all in all.

Again this is what i mean by agenda if this was Walcott beating a top 10 ranked contender by wide margin, you'd be praising Walcott and using it to his defence. But because it doesn't fit your agenda for this particular debate, it's being used against Holmes for you to make a case for a Walcott win which is ludicrous. And then as i said in next sentence you'll disregard Walcott's losses baffling logic.

Did Witherspoon ever fight a better fight in his career after the Holmes fight ? most would say that's the best performance of his career where he showed his whole skillset.

Norton's form coming into the Young wasn't that of a fighter that was past his prime, he'd scored two early stoppages over Zanon, Bobick, had a disputed loss to Ali and won vs the underrated Young who himself had just had an ATG win over Foreman.

And i don't see how you can analyze these fights and think they're in anyway relevant to a fight vs Walcott ? Witherspoon and Norton are 6'3 220 pound Heavyweights with a cross arm like defence who fight on the front foot.

I never made that claim did i ? you asked me who of Holmes's title challengers could beat Walcott and i gave you a list. Some of these Heavyweights are bigger, stronger, more athletic, and with Walcott having 20 losses and having lost to some unremarkable opponents. If he had to fight the same 20 opponents in a 7 year period that Holmes did then yes Walcott would have a few losses on his record.

Ali had more success vs Frazier in fights 2 and 3, Norton basically fought Ali to a dead heat in all 3 fights which was a stylistic issue that Ali couldn't really solve in 3 fights. I'm a bit baffled you don't think Norton's style wasn't that complicated ? he had a very unique style and was poison for boxers.

Holmes 6'3 81 inch reach 210 pounds a consistent winner and much more proven Heavyweight vs 6'0 74 inch reach 190 pound Walcott yes i'll favour Holmes.

Finally i'm pretty sure your an ALT account that i've interacted with here before so i'm going to ignore your posts from now on, and i also find it hilarious a 22 year old is calling me a "kid" when i'm 2 years older.

 

Incorrect. The combined ranking of 24 of our fellow posters not only had Holmes #3, but with a good deal of daylight between him and#4 & below -

This content is protected

 

Or maybe he kept getting title shots because his manager was great friends with the mob and was actually a part of it himself>

 

Is this true?