Luis Ortiz vs Jersey Joe Walcott

I think Walcott wins over Bivins, Oma, Baksi and Gomez are worth noting too.

 

To me that ends up 10-6 in his “prime” — you can’t count the first Marciano fight as in his prime and then less than 8 months later he’s past it.

Likewise you start his prime less than 2 months after back-to-back defeats to the same Ray and Maxim, so really 10-8.

We regard the Joe Louis of this period far differently. I don’t think that’s ‘hanging with an immortal’ as that immortal was well past it.

I say you pick any 2-3 year period of Walcott’s career and you’ll see a lot of good and a lot of bad — wildly inconsistent, as I said.

 

If you're extending it to that (and no way on earth was Walcott prime for the Marciano rematch anyway). then what's you're justification for excluding Walcott's other 5 wins that year before the Maxim and Ray fights?

The standard of opponent he fought in that period was extemely high, and most of his losses were close fight.

 

Copied and pasted from a thread about Jersey Joe's prime in relation to the Marciano fights. It's unambiguously the correct answer.

The general idea is that Walcott's prime was later on in his career because in his early career he was living in rough conditions and was basically a gatekeeper. These are obvious true; valid reasons, not excuses. Thing is, is that they inevitably led him to calling it quits in 1940, but shortly after World War II, he was under new management (Bocchicchio) and he was living a comfortable life. He was training full time, living like an athlete and actively getting paid the wages of a top contender. There were no getting to grips with his style, there was no lack of inexperience. As soon as he came out of his first retirement in 1944, and once the ring rust had been shaken off - he was from then on in his prime.

From 1944, until 1952 is a very long time to actually think Walcott was prime for. It's a stretch - to say the least - to think that Walcott's prime actually lasted a whole eight years. Especially when you consider that all of the mileage of his first career rendition, as well as the manual labour which will have undoubtedly augmented his physical breakdown, clearly stacks up and is a lot in his own right. Then add the four years inactivity which likely took something out if him in the ways of speed and reflexes, and then finally the additional wear and tear he'd have picked up vs the likes of Ray, Bivins, Maxim, Charles, Louis, Layne, etc; in his long, second-career before Marciano I. In fact, it's clear that age was a perceived problem at the time. Headed into the first bout with Charles, there was a general belief that Walcott was too old.

Saying he was shot to pieces for the first fight is flat out wrong. Dunno who's been saying that. He was clearly still an elite fighter and he was also, the best heavyweight in the world. So the win deserves respect, and you can see on the film on the Marciano fight that he was clearly still an elite fighter. It's just that say, Charles or Louis' wins over him are clearly better. I do think that such a devasting knockout and war took a massive toll on him, but also made him lose motivation. He was a rich man, he'd been the champion and I can't imagine he wanted to carry on. He clearly went in there in the rematch with the idea that he was getting out quick smart. I think saying he was shot by that point is fair.

So I went with Past-it But Still Quality, since that seems the most apt.

To add to this, and actually put a pinpoint time frame on Joe's absolutely peak - in the sense of what he actually was, not what he could've been; I've not doubt he'd have been even better if the cookie had crumbled in a more favourable way - I'd wager that he was at his absolutely best from the first Louis fight to the third Charles fight. The stakes of trying so hard to win the title clearly drove him on, and they're two of his best performances anyway.

 

This is good and fair.

 

J

Jennings will be remembered as a fighter who would be champion today by hipsters 100 years from now show some respect,

 

Maybe if a devastating plague wiped out 90% of people weighing over 160Ibs, and vegans were immune.