Prime Joe Louis v Walcott and Charles?

Yet still very effective.

 

Walcott was of course passed his physical prime in his late 30's, and if he had the same training, diet and opportunities in his 20's as he did later he would have been an even better fighter than he was. But the thing is: he didn't and therefore he wasn't. So even if he was passed his physical prime in his 30's (like everyone else) those were still his peak years as a fighter.

 

Walcott got knocked out.
"Clowning" isn't a good excuse, it's a bad one. It means you deserved to lose, it means you fought a rubbish fight.
It's basically saying he was amateurish and prone to make awful amateurish errors, hence he got KO'd.
Very stupid thing for him to do with a fighter he was apparently familiar with, as you say.

Might explain why Walcott got KO'd by some of those other guys too.

Okay, if that's how it is, then they were both prime at the same time.

I say Louis's prime was 1935 - '40
I can't see the Walcott of 1935 - '40 beating the Louis of those years.

No, I'm not saying he won the first fight but I say a KO win is better than a 15-round distance win.
Walcott left it in the hands of the judges, and got a bad deal apparently (I can't quite say "robbed" since I haven't seen it, but it was a questionable decision).
Louis did not leave it in the hands of the judges.

 

I'm not sure that Walcott ever really had a prime at all. As a young athlete he was under prepared, poorly managed, working full time jobs while boxing on the side and not always properly nourished. By the time all these things were fixed he was approaching middle age and had already sustained a significant amount of wear and tear. I suppose we can say that Walcott did well " given the circumstances" but the man never really had a true prime. And if we're honest the division was in a temporary slump for a few years which gave him the window of opportunity that he needed to make waves in the sport. But in most instances a guy who had those beginnings and that type of career track wouldn't have had much success in boxing. Imagine that same guy in that same scenario trying to get his act together and win a title from the 70's onward. Probably wouldn't happen... Sure someone is likely to chime in and say " well I bet the 37 year old Walcott who beat Charles and gave Marciano fits would beat guys like Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc. Well that might be true but experience tells us that its not quite that simple and nor would he have the luxury of handpicking top raters that his style and situation was well suited for.

 

Talking about a moving the goalposts association fallacy bud. Why would we try and come up with a better 5 year period, when the 5 year period you mention IS when he started to get the proper backing and resources to be good. THAT is when those things happened and THAT IS when he went on that streak. That is the epitome of a premises supporting the conclusion. You then are asking, well find me a better period than that, and if you can't well than that was his prime. WTF, I mean really, you can't really be asking that knowing full well the totality of the situation. THAT IS the period, but that doesnt' mean that was his physical prime. It's that simple.

We're only arguing what Walcott's physical prime is, that is ALL I've been discussing. You claim it was when he was from 33 to 38, and I'm claiming that couldn't be further from the truth. He WAS NOT physically prime then. It's IMPOSSBILE. That is the point you're arguing with me, and making zero headway on. Nobody is claiming Walcott wasn't good enough at those ages to be a damn good fighter, a great even. He was, and is. I'm claiming that wasn't his physical prime, and we'll just never know how good he would've been if he had the proper backing during his peak physical years. Just please don't expect me to believe he was physically prime then.

 

I think you are right on target.

Walcott was in his prime ( best fighter) late, for various reasons.

33-38 seems perfectly reasonable.

 

It was the disingenuousness of the post that bothered me. If you feel that Walcott won the first cool, then we're in agreement. Me responding to you, was because it felt like you were saying.. well Louis KO'd him past his prime, so he would've done so earlier in his prime. That is what I disagreed with.

Walcott pretty clearly won the first fight, there can be no doubt about that. Seemingly doing so easily while clowning the reigning champion. Thus, no matter if Walcott last after that, the first fight is enough to show and prove that Walcott would always give Louis problems. That to be is unquestionable.

let me ask you this.. do you think Pernell beating Ramirez in their second fight, not even losing a round, is less impressive than Holyfield KOing douglas? To me, a KO isn't anymore dominant than a wide clear very clear UD. In both cases the opponent was totally dominated. To me, KOes are the be all end all, you can be just as dominant and not KO a guy. KO's are just more decisive in its ending.

I dont' think showboating speaks to that. It can, I would agree, but I don't think they are mutually inclusive always. We all do it. I do it on the basketball court sometimes, just to keep the game fun, to get the other guy off his game or simply because I can. Doesn't mean I deserve to lose though. All it might point to is being too confident at the wrong time. That's the thing, he was doing the same thing in the first fight and never got caught in right to a decision win. For 10 rounds of the second fight, he was clowning still and winning doing so. So it was certainly working for himi through 25 rounds of them fighting. Walcott had KD Joe twice and Joe had never had Walcott down or even in trouble. Doing this all while still clowning him. It's easy to see why he was so confident.

It's a stretch of an ****ogy but if you're playing a 10 year old at basketball... are you really going to try hard? If he only needed 2 baskets and you need 11... if you mess around and let him get 2 baskets...does that mean you deserve to lose? Does that mean it was terrible decision. No, we just get that way sometimes when we are confident. Granted, this should be taken more serious for the HW title of the world. All I'm saying is, we as humans routinely get confident when we continue to do well at something or against somebody. Was it a mistake on his part, sure it ended up being one, but that doesn't change the fact that he was thoroughly and completely outboxing him for 25 rounds. Tell me something.. do you think Joe Louis got the better of 26 round against Walcott, because he happened to catch Walcott in round 26 when he was clowning? Sorry I don't think that proves joe was the better fighter. I'll take the guy who's won most of the 25 rounds with 3 KD's mixed in over a guy getting mostly beat for 25 rounds and then gets a shot in there when the other guy is clowning and KO's him. I just don't see that as more impressive

 

Louis beats them both but,as has been said by many,still finds Ezzard and Jersey Joe very tough.


Louis by UD or late round kos.

 

are you claiming that was his physical prime or just when he put all things together. They aren't one in the same. I'm only talking about Walcott's physical prime, and it wasn't at age 36 or 38.. **** not even 33

 

Considering Walcotts past.

Walcott may very well have been in better physical shape at 33 than 28.

I know you are saying younger = better, and you would be right in most cases. But, in Walcotts case that line is a little more blurry.

 

Some people think George Foreman was a better fighter with his superior technique, pacing and defence at 40 than he was at 25

Archie Moore peaked in his late 30s

 

Unforgiven

From 1945-1953(Walcotts comeback) he was only knocked out by ATG punchers Louis and Marciano. During this period Walcott defeated a lot of big punchers Lee Q Murray, Tommy Gomez, Elmer Ray, Hatcheman Sheppard

Walcott was proven against elite punchers


If you are referring to his knockouts in the 30s, I suggest reading his book. It has awesome descriptions on the knockout losses

Walcott suffered most of his knockout losses in 30s due to failing stamina from showing up to the fight in very poor physical condition, the Simon fight for instance, all he had to eat in the previous 36 hours was a half of a raw potato. He won almost every round of the fight, was dominating, when he ran out of gas by round 6. Walcotts handlers said he weighed in at 180lb for Simon fight, they incorrectly listed him as 192

 

There can be no valid argument really. The ref (closest man to the action and has the best feel of the fight) said Walcott won. The press had Walcott winning. The crown booed incessantly about the decision. Even an investigation was opened up on the fight. That is ALL with the old scoring criteria in play. The better more improved criteria would've seen Walcott winning going away. 2 Kd.. to zero for Louis. Louis never even hurt Walcott to give him some kind of extra lift on the cards. Shoot, Louis even tried to leave the ring before the decision was read. All this points to Walcott winning the fight. That is the most logical conclusion.