Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

Let's just conlude it by saying he's certainly great in the way Morales or MAB are great.

Can't see anyone disagreeing with that.

 

I'm glad you think he's great Big Flea.. But I will disagree on something... Charles lost a CLEAR majority decision.. while impressive.. he lost a clear decision. Walcott was CLEARLY winning before being "sparked" as you say in the 13th. So really.. I'm not sure how you can say Charles did better.. he was never ahead in that fight.. on the contary for 90% of Walcott's fight he was ahead. That is more impressive to me but to each their own I suppose.

 

I mostly agree with that Lora... though my point is.. that walcott has more top wins than either of them as well. More losses to, but imo those have context to them early in his career. However, it was a fair point.

Lora.. favorite internation soccer team and club team?

 

141-144 (6-7-2)
142-142 (8-6-1)
142-141 (9-6)

Those would be the cards on a 10 point must system.

 

so again

McG has stinky ****

Louis draws under 10 point must

Healthy debate as to whether or not he's great.

 

That is accepting the validity of the cards luf.. you're better than this. The whole point I and others have been arguing is that the judges GOT IT WRONG. This wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last. Louis had home court advantage and was the beloved champion (rightfully so) not the first time sentiments like that have swayed the judges. the point is.. if MORE people thought Walcott won.. including the crowd.. the ref.. the sportswriters... that is already calling into question the verdict. Adding two more points would undoubtedly tip the scales in walcotts favor as mcgrain and everybody else knows. Stop being obtuse.

 

Poll hath spokened. :deal

 

I dunno if they got it wrong since I can't watch the fight and make my own judgement.

But you have argued about how 10 point must would have given jersey a clear victory when on reality it gives him a draw, probably leads to a rematch and a rematch in which Louis will knock him the **** out.

It's not about being obtuse, it's about keeping an open mind.

 

I'm not saying it's better per se but Walcott fought his best fight and got sparked. Charles had less to offer Marciano as a stylistic foil, got battered more, and survived.

Walcott-Charles III is massively impressive, as a result and from an aesthetic point of view. But I give Walcott a good amount, but not tremendous amount of credit for his performance first time round against Marciano. It's not a Conn-Louis I-esque legacy affirming losing effort is what I'm saying.

 

Come on man, I know you want to try and make me look bad, and I have seen you not quote relevant parts of my post and go.. you have it totally wrong and that isn't what we're talking about. When in fact, I SPECIFICALLY mentioned what we were talking about.. you just choose to not quote that part INTENTIONALLY. I was in the same damn paragraph.

Further, in regards to the marciano thing being swept under the rug.. that wasn't even a comment towards you.. as you can clearly see (guess not or another intentional thing) I wasn't even talking to you in that regards. But now that we are... Let me get this straight.. YOu think LaStarza or Charles gave Marciano his best fight? That is your stance correct and we'll expand upon that further.

AGAIN... I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION already. I said hardly ANY great fighters that I can think of lost to such names like that in their physical prime. ANother sign of you desperatly trying to make me look bad for not answering something I've answered NUMEROUS times. That said, while I can't name any great fighters who lost to such names in their physical prime.. there is also context to those losses no? He was a LATE starter McGrain.. YOU KNOW THIS... he was essentially learning on a job. You act like Jersey joe had an amateur career like Pea or something. He didn't. He was a part time fighter.. even working a night job.. not backed financially not properly trained... Let's expand on this.. name me another fighter with all those things working against him who didn't lose such bouts and considered an ATG. Even if there are.. which I can't think of any with all that going against him... They might be an exception to the rule. Dare I say.. most any fighter who got started boxing late.. no backing.. not properly trained who have an inconsistent record. That is undoubtedly would be the norm.

As far as your next question.. I'll get back to you on that and see what sources can be found.

It wouldn't been a DRAW USING THOSE JUDGES CARDS.. I've ALWAYS and there can be no question about this.. QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF SAID CARDS. Don't be stupid McGrain.. If I've been going on and on for a year about how walcott should've won.. WHY THE **** would I also be accepting their scoring. It's the EXACT opposite. I and MANY others at the time and now feel they got it wrong.. So why then... would I continue to use their cards as the premise leading to my conclusion. That makes zero sense. This is criticial thinking 101. I question their scoring from the jump and always have. I'm not suing their cards to say he won... I'm clearly saying.. THE MAJORITY of fans... sportswriters... the ref.. felt Walcott won. So that already questions the validity of the cards in question. Now, when you take that evidence and you add two more points being added to a fight the majority feel walcott already won.. what conclusion do you come to? Jesus H. Christ... Did you guys ever take a critical thinking class in college. Following things to their logical conclusion can't be this hard. Even still, let's use said cards.. it's still a draw.. and thus THE BEST anybody had done against a close to prime Louis correct? You can't even give him that huh?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opAJBr9G9MY deal In terms of skill Walcott is definetly great.

 

Great. Jersey Joe Walcotts resume, spotty at times, exemplifies what a great fighter is able to accomplish when faced adversity that would destroy the career hopes of most fighters.