Sam Langford Vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Walcott too big of a stylist with power, I can see Sam giving him some trouble but JJW the better at Heavyweight,slick pinpoint power UD or stop

 

Walcott would give him trouble but keep in mind Sam could take him out with one shot ... my biggest trouble with Walcott is that other than the KO victory over Charles, he really is known far more for his losses than victories ...

 

or his clear robbery win over top heavyweight of all time joe louis in the first fight? how bout his desisive wins over murray, bivins, and ray? his knockout victory over harold johnson(it was not controversial)? while I can see your point how most remember walcott for his ahead on all 3 cards late knockout losses to marciano and louis but in general i think walcotts body of work gets overlooked too much..........

that said I expect this too be a real competitive match. I like walcott to win a close split decision, both fighters down in this fight. I think walcotts effective jab is the difference in the cards. walcotts movement feints cute tricks would even make clever sam look bag, but sam would track walcott down pummeling him to the body lashing out sharp hooks to the head. but walcott was extremely strong and would give back to sam just as much as he would take on the inside. expect walcott to employ in and out walcott waltz strategy to frustrate much shorter sam on the outside with his walkaway counter traps and triple jab combos..... very good fight.




For those thinking sam has an easy fight here, think again. Louis and Marciano were both badly outboxed/knocked down and WAY down on the cards against walcott late in the fights, and both louis and marciano were better than sam.

 

I take Walcott via decision he looks better then Langford on film and he was so difficult to time and had some serious power. Sam chin keeps him in this one but loses a fairly wide decision.

 

SQ: I'm sure you have great points there ... I have always wanted to see more footage of Walcott other than what I see all the time; a few rounds of Louis 1 and 2, the same of the Charles fights and the Marciano loss ...

 

I can't help but wonder how similar Jersey Joe might have been to Joe Jeannette. It's a shame more footage doesn't exist of both Langford and Jeannette. But thinking of Langford's contests against Jeannette, and how Marciano ultimately caught up with Walcott in their first contest, and even sooner in their 2nd bout, to knock him out both times I'd take my chances on Langford doing the same to him eventually as well.

 

It depends on what strategy Walcott employs because Langfords role will be largley reactive.

If Walcott chooses to fight one of his agresive fights as he periodicaly did then Langford will have him either by count or by card.

If the Walcott of the first Louis fight turns up to the party then anything can happen.

 

Walcott sometimes shied away from punchers, and lacks the top level chin to recover when hit by punchers. Langford was a skilled banger with a great chin, who knew how to cut off the ring. I think Langford would Ko Walcott, or win a decision

 

I wouldnt say that. lorenzo pack hatchetman sheppard Elmer Ray Tommy Gomez Lee Q Murray Hein Ten Hoff were all rated big punchers and walcott defeated all of these men soundily taking there best shots along the way......Also walcott took some flush shots from both louis and marciano and it took them many rounds to dispose of walcott.


Sam Langford was 5'6, how is he going to fight against a 6'0 200lb fighter like walcott with a top jab and footwork? hes never seen one before, they didnt exist in his era.

 

I would say so. Walcott was Ko'd 6 times, and down in other fights where he was not Ko'd by the likes of Charles, and Sheppard.

Walcott ran vs a lesser talent in Layne and lost a decision.

I do not see Walcott having the chin or resolve to stand up and stand up to a put bull like Langford, who is case you are not aware owns KO wins over Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette, George Godfrey, and Harry Wills. Wills, Godfrey and McVey were bigger, weighed more, and hit harder than Walcott. Jeanette was a tad smaller but he had better stamina, chin, and toughness in comparison to Jersey Joe Walcott. Jeanette was quick himself.

Langford’s style was hard for boxer mover types. I suppose you want examples. Ok-- Langford tracked down and took out a very fast Jeff Clark in two rounds, and beat Clark on many occasions. Clark was known as the “ ghost “. He was very quick. Langford also crushed a very good Kid Norfolk in two rounds. Norfolk was not slow poke in the ring. The reverse is true.

Sure Langford was about 5'7" tall, but if you want to focus on what matters, he had more reach than Charles or Marciano.

 

But the only fighter sam ever faced with a decent jab, he got jabbed so much by fulton he went blind! On film sam doesnt have counters for top jabs, and his short height doesnt help him in that regard. walcott in his prime trippled up jabs it had lots of zip on it. i think sam would be troubled greatly by this.

But in his prime, only two ATG top 5 heavyweights of all time rocky marciano and joe louis were able to knock him out, and it took them MANY rounds to do so.

most of his knockout losses happened in the 1930s when he was sick with typhoid, not training, taking fights on 24 hr notice. he was well before his best.

out of all heavyweight champions....outside of lennox lewis WALCOTT FOUGHT THE MOST BIG PUNCHERS and did quite well against them 1945-1952.

hatchetman sheppard is on the RINGS top 100 punchers of all time list, archie moore called him the hardest hitter he ever faced in 250 pro bouts! walcott twice beat hatchetman!

he had the chin and resolve to standup to BETTER fighters louis and marciano for many rounds.......also walcott doesnt need to stand up to langford. all he needs to do is box his ears off, utilizing his amazing footwork to get him out of harms way.

yes impressive. but walcott holds wins over joe louis, lee q murray, ezzard charles, elmer ray, harold johnson.

godfrey was in his PRO DEBUT!! he wasnt anywhere near close to his best.

Did Sam McVey hit harder? who did McVey ever knockout that was great? Walcott rates higher on Rings Top 100 punchers of all time list and knocked out great fighters. i think its highly debatable is McVey hit harder than walcott.


Rocky Marciano was equally durable, but bigger stronger and harder punching than langford, and walcott handled him quite well.

Elmer Ray was a skilled swarmer at 6'2 with 81" reach, walcott handled him....ray had a style similiar to langfords except ray had better tools than sam.

Harold Johnson 5'10 was a more skilled boxer than langford, and walcott knocked him down in the 2nd, then stopped him in the 3rd.

Walcott was a much better boxer, harder puncher, better footwork, better defense than jenette. no comparison.

Clark was much smaller than walcott, and had NOWHERE near the the jab, footwork, punching power, strength, size walcott had. same with norfolk.


I think walcotts style is hard for pitbull swarmers.......ray and marciano both struggled tremendously vs walcott. if sam tries to stalk walcott and fight more scientificully, he is going to be jabbed to death and made a fool of by walcotts tricky footwork the way louis was.

so reach now matters? u made fun of jimmy bivins for being 5'9, but he has a 80" reach???

 

Sam Langford certainly accomplished more in his own era than Walcott did in his. Given the advancements in sports I guess one could make the case that Walcott might prevail in an actual fight but comparing athletes from different eras seems a bit unfair so I'm not sure what this would prove.

 

says who? walcott cleaned out his ENTIRE heavyweight division 1945-1947 just a 3 year span he beat 8 top 10 rated heavyweight contenders most of them rated in the top 5.

 

True. Walcott is 2-5 in title fights, and was beaten by mere contenders and some journeyman. Langford in his prime was more consistent, and beat better heavies.