Larry Holmes vs Jersey Joe Walcott

No in a word.

He kept getting title shots, because the results of the fights wee controversial.

 

Cooney didn't have any boxing skill to speak of and made his name by taking out guys who were past it. The power is a threat I'll give you that.

Please show me where I said that Walcott never lost to lesser fighters. You're inventing arguments that I never made.

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.

This sentence isn't grammatically correct. And again your inventing arguments I never made.

Norton was 34-35 years old he wasn't exactly at his peak and declined right afterwards. I said he was at the end of his prime (which is being generous).

You said that Norton, Shavers and a bunch of other guys would beat Walcott. If thats the case then he beats all of Walcott's best opponents by extension.

Norton fought on the front foot, jabbed and cross-arm blocked and went to the body, there wasn't much variation in his style. I see why he would have been a problem for boxers but I wouldn't necessarily classify his style as 'complicated'. Especially when compared to a master of deception like Walcott.

You're backing down from the argument that you started and calling me an 'ALT' and I'm the one that has to calm down? Makes a lot of sense.

 

Discussion might’ve drifted from the fact (as prescribed by the OP) that this is the Walcott from the first Louis fight (vs Larry of the first Shavers fight).

So I guess, lesser Walcott performances notwithstanding, that’s the Walcott on the table here.

Taking the perceived, absolute best versions of fighters can be problematic. Tokyo Douglas can be reasoned to prevail over a good number of ATGS whilst being competitive with a good number of others.

Can best versions realistically be only sourced from one fight against and relative to just one particular opponent? I would think not, so some measure of sampling is most appropriate.

I’d have to research more to decide on Walcott’s best performance. Would Louis 1, the Charles KO victory and Marciano 1 be a fair start?

Despite the losses on his record, we might still have an “averaged” Walcott from a fair sampling of his best performances that could provide some reasonable difficulties for Holmes - but personally I still see Larry as the ultimate victor.

Jimmy Young may be another guy whose overall resume perhaps belies the absolute best performances he was capable of posting during his career against the likes of Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Foreman and Ali - though his resume against the upper echelon was better than Joes and quite outstanding - despite same, I think a similarly slick Young would pull up short against a more offensively active and proactively aggressive Holmes also.

 

Cooney did have a measure of boxing skills, including an excellent jab.

His ultimate fight ending power might’ve overshadowed those skills but it didn’t render them non-existent.

Yes, it was a past prime Young that he faced but sans an outright KO (Young proved himself to be a super tough SOB and stoically hung tough) Gerry’s level of boxing skills were shown off in a better light imo.

 

San Francisco Chronicle, 11/30/47
"As a journeyman fighter (Walcott) who wants to stay in the business, he has learned to protect himself, even at the cost of displeasing the crowd."

Washington Evening Star, 12/6/47
"Joe Louis... today is wearing a tarnished crown which belongs on the fuzzy semibald head of Jersey Joe Walcott, 34-year old journeyman heavyweight and ebony-hued father of six children."

Plain Dealer 6/23/48
"(Walcott) only lately come to be recognized as a fair journeyman operator after 17 years of ring warfare."

Washington Evening Star 12/8/49
"Walcott doesn't have youth. His older than Louis. Jersey Joe lacks the vicious, killing instinct which lifted Dempsey to the peak of popularity... He is, in short, a plodding journeyman heavyweight who had his night."

Burton Hawkins, Buffalo News, 7/30/48
(Walcott) He's a moderately talented, but extremely cautious- a 34-year old journeyman heavyweight who finds himself squarely in the championship picture strictly due to the mediocrity of his competition."

Milwaukee Journal, 6/22/48
"For Walcott is strictly a second rater, a journeyman boxer working at a trade."

Richmond Times Dispatch, 3/5/50
"The heavyweights are such a poor lot that a journeyman fighter (Walcott), who once quit the ring but came back to fight regularly, can make the No. 7 heavyweight look like a novice amateur scrapper."

Oregon Journal, 7/20/51
"His is a story- which for sheer drama- rivals that of another old man, Jim Braddock. The both hail from New Jersey and each was a journeyman for years without ever getting past first base in their race for fame and fortune."

Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 6/5/52
"Though he's an effective journeyman artilleryist, Walcott's style places heavy demands upon his legs as he jibs about in the manner of barefooted man on a sun-blasted tin roof."

 

Wish we had more second raters like that today

 

Agree He got to a title shot and did his best what’s good boxing look like ? What Cooney did was successful boxing like Young it wasn’t pretty but it’s a messy game

 

Wow. Look. It's another poster who joined 8 minutes ago.

Tell me more, wise one.

 

Dang. Looks like Walcott was not exactly popular with the press back then.

 

I'll also add Young was only stopped twice in his whole career, once vs Shavers when he was green as grass. And then by Cooney when he was a bit past his best but still a competent fighter. Young fought many of the upcoming 80s Heavyweight prospects after being stopped by Cooney and was never stopped again.

 

Louis was considerably past his best when Walcott fought him and hadn't fought for over a year in their 1st meeting, and still Walcott did not actually beat Louis and was poleaxed in the 2nd fight.

As I said earlier people making excuses for Walcott's losses the fact he did he lose end of. But yeah let's make a Light Heavyweight/Heavyweight who never weighed over 200 pounds with 20 losses on his record, the favourite vs one of the most consistent winners ever at Heavyweight in Larry Holmes who has considerable height, reach, weight, advantages absolutely baffling to me.

My last comment wasn't directed at you BTW mate.

 

Walcott was 36 by the time he fought Layne.

 

I think the best version of Jersey Joe is the 31-33 year old who beat everyone around before challenging Louis.

The Walcott who beat Baksi, Oma, Bivins, Murray, Ray and Maxim and then almost beat a very capable Joe Louis is the best version of Jersey Joe.
I don't think we can ignore the toll a long fighting career and age would've taken on him from 1948 And beyond.

 

Jimmy Young was a top heavyweight for about 10 fights and then turned into a journeyman.

 

Quite telling Walcott's "prime" was when he was 30something.
Normally a fighter at that age would be way past its prime and not a few would be already into semi-retirement or retirement.

I am not knowledgeable on Walcott’s career. It would be interesting to know more details. Is there some decent biographical book out there?