I disagree with that being the casue of all his loses. What about Walcotts 18 losses? I could go down the list of all these old time greats with crazy amount of losses. They all also fought way too frequently by todays standards. Any most of their obscure losses occur when they fight multiple times in a 60 day frame. It became a better topic I'm not arguing as much as I'm pointing something interesting out.
I was responding to Unforgiven who clearly was looking for an argument.What's racist about it? It's not meant seriously,I thought it was popular fare among southern Whites not Blacks from New Jersey? That's twice in the last two weeks I've been accused of racism,despite my Avatar,the first time was by that M**** Mongoose , about whom I've received two pms agreeing with me he is a total ***** ,I would have expected a little better from you. Just goes to show you.
Ive given my reasons why Walcott had those losses.I'm not repeating myself . Why not make a thread about it instead of side-tracking someone else's?
I was what ?? I was asking about Walcott's diet, something I would never argue about since I don't have any knowledge or opinion on his diet ...... except that he looked bloody good for it, whatever it was.
If I had to guess, I think Walcott probably ate steak. I think all fighters ate steak. In his "hard times" he probably didn't eat steak at all, maybe he had canned meat. This is a complete guess. I don't know if he ever lost a fight due to poor diet but I've heard people cite that often. Lee Oma possibly had a similar diet. There was a war on around this time, and just before that was the Great Depression. I think Americans in general were better fed than us Brits though, certainly due ww2 and the 1950s, maybe that's why we didn't have such good heavyweights in those days. I'd like to try possum, black-eyed peas and grits anyway, whether Walcott ever had that or not. I like to sample different foods for from countries. More often than not it turns out good.
Black's ate what everybody ate, and could afford. Fighters looked at fighting as a means of support for themselves and their families it was their job, different mentality. Possum, looks like a big rat, we in South Texas see them all the time walking around. I have never seen possum on any menu and in nobodies home, both in Jersey and in Texas. JJW was born and raised in Jersey, not in the deep south. Poor whites and blacks probably enjoyed possum down south cos they were around and plentiful, not so much in the North. If anything JJW was probably eating west Indian food, mixed with whatever else people in Jersey were eating. You need to explain that to Reznik ,and I know it was a different time I was around in the late 40's!I see we are back to your premise that covers all your arguments the others know f8ck all because if they did they would agree with you! I'm pretty tired of this arrogant sh8t so I'll disengage now. What's so arrogant about the truth? Is it cos maybe viewing boxing related stuff and filtering it through actual knowledge of boxing, as a business, a sport and it's tactic's strategies, training, trainers and fighters is wrong? Alot of the arguments here are based on articles and boxrec, which is fine, as a starting point. Like for instance, that last thread, you said you didnt see any right crosses that Louis threw on Marciano. Maybe a little knowledge of how Marciano fought and just looking at his stance would give you a clue, why there were no right crosses. So what is arrogant about that? That was an answer that addressed your question. A knowledge of boxing would have given you an answer and not have taken 300+ replies to try to convince you that Louis, was not basically a one handed fighter, why Louis didnt throw right crosses, and that he still retained power, and even then it still didnt convince you. Maybe what you call arrogance is knowledge that you dont have and since you dont have it, you cant handle it. If you are tired of this then why come on here with your arrogance, sarcasm and smug remarks. This is a forum, where difference of opinions are discussed and shared. If I see somebodies post and I question it, is cos I have a difference of opinion. I believe that is still allowed is it not??? Why are you so upset? Cos I look at articles as a starting point, and question what is said in the article? Scribes, even scribes that have written about boxing all their lives, are sometimes wrong or can be interpreted differently again what is wrong with that? On this thread, your great revelations are about his losses, nothing about his wins. Face it like it or not Oma, fought his way to contendership and had some good wins to get there, why not stress that. People on here are not more interested in that he lost to an unknown who had a terrible record before and after he was a contender, why? Really who cares that JJW had 18 losses, or that Oma had so many losses, I for one understand that losses at that time didnt mean as much then as they do now. That you want to disengage, nobody asked you to engage you do so on your own free will, as we all do. FYI pointing to your avatar, is the same as saying, some of my best friends are black. You said you were 68, and then you said on this post that you were around in the late '40's, what you were reading articles at 2yrs old?
Did I say I was reading articles then? You labelled my light hearted comment racist I responded to that. Some of my best friends are black so what? I never brought JJW into the thread you'll have to take that up with R. Oma's losses occurred throughout his career ,including his prime years and losses to nobodies at that. To make a case for him being a real quality heavyweight is a stretch too far imo that's my opinion ,and you are entitled to disagree with it.I now have Zodius,Galvatron,Mongoose and yourself, getting quite a following. You presume to speak for everyone do you? Assessing any fighters abilities entails looking at their defeats as well as their wins, but you label that negativisim.You manage to drop a few personal comments in every reply to me its a pattern. So let me be clear I don't give a good f*ck what you think about me, but you keep regurgitating posts from other threads and tacking them onto new ones ,it's not only nonsensical it's down right boring
I would say the closet modern guy in recent years to Oma was Fast Eddie Chambers about 5 years ago now. Both undersized but crafty guys. Oma is certainly slower but we only have footage of a 34 year old version. Oma and Eddie both peaked with #2 RING ratings. Right now, the top 10 is filled with a bunch of super heavy prospects we know very little about. But Stiverne and Glazkov have been in and out of the top 10 pretty frequently, and they are not good fighters.
At cruiser definitely if Denton Daley can be ranked in the top ten, Oma without a doubt. Oma would fit in cos he's a boxer rather then a puncher and when he was on, he did alright. The cruisers was his weight then and would be now, and he did well in a talent rich era. Look at today's cruiser rankings compare it to Oma's era. Then as now names will pop out. I am not saying he would have won the championship but he at least was world rated in a good era, the cruisers now really have no names to compare. Today's cr. Gassiev and Usyk stand out, with a host of others, like Lebdev, and Huck. There's cruiser's that can hit a ton, but for youtube we wouldnt see them. The cruisers are the real HW division IMO, how many Louis', Marciano, Dempsey's have we missed cos now it's the superhw size guys division really, cos cruiser guys are the ******* child of boxing. I am hoping that Gassiev and Usyk fight cos it might bring the cruisers to the fore.
Another one of these silly threads. Lee Oma wasn't a heavyweight. He was a 180 to 190 pound fighter. Oma was a 180 to 190 pound fighter who couldn't punch or take a punch against people his own size. Oma gets knocked out by any of the top 500 heavyweights today all in less than 3 rounds.