Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

He must not think too highly of Louis, then. The Charles KO too. Just flukey jibber jabber jiving.

 

Solis had great talent. Real shame. He looked good before the knee gave in against Vitali, I agree with that.

 

His pre title run was very good beat the division's BMR of that time but get's penalized in that he either lost to or never got the best of the greatest fighters he fought although he got so very close.

 

I can't speak for Seamus entirely, but the gist of what he said is absolutely correct.
Walcott was not consistent or dominant enough to conclude that all his cute moves equated to a supreme level of boxing skill.

The fact is he came off worse in a two-fight series with a definitely and clearly diminished Joe Louis, and he needed three attempts to get a win over Ezzard Charles, a smaller man, and he scraped past or lost to lots of less impressive names. He lacked dominance and consistency.

 

Came off worse I guess is a matter of opinion

 

Even if you're bat**** crazy enough to overrule the decision of a fight you havent seen using criteria that wasn't around back then, you would have to conclude that the man who got knocked out came off worse than the man who did the knocking out.

 

Its very hard to create the school of hard knocks environment of the era, Louis was still a great fighter and a guy that always got better the 2nd time around...Charles was a very good heavyweight and still prime when he fought Louis, Walcott and Marciano fight 1, Walcott was one of the most fit and powerful pinpoint punchers with both hands and he also had great feet. IMO he would give a prime Ali fits, IMO he has a good chance to upset George Foreman and has a very good chance to upset Larry Holmes, in fact I give him a chance to win or lose against all of the top guys, he did have some erratic fights, hot and cold but he also had some great performances and fought some very serious punchers......is his overall achievements great, maybe not considering some of his great performances were losses.....but he held even with 2 of the great and dominant champions in 15 rounders and had some wonderful wins in between, I have him as the spoiler of the ATG's, people I know that saw the first Louis fight said it was one of the worst robbery's of all time and most of the smartest boxing men I know rate Walcott as a great fighter, consistent no but he did have a solid run up till Louis and fought the guys no body wanted to fight and he beat the best of the best of the black murders row, not an easy task....I rate Walcott high

 

Don't be silly bud... that would be like saying.. THE MAJORITY of people are bat**** crazy in thinking the decision was wrong. The majority did and a clear majority of fans and sportswriters. That isn't being bat**** crazy.. that is being in the majority that is more than likely correct. If you feel whitaker beat Ramirez or chavez... are you in the bat**** crazy cause he didn't get the verdict even though most feel he won. Nope. Same thing here.. in fact... it's more likely the only bat**** crazy people here are the ones in the minority.. not the opposite.

Yes I think a KO is decisive and thus one could say Louis came off looking better even if you credit Walcott with winning a decision in the first fight. I don't totally mind that line of thinking because it's rooted in some logic and facts. However, as I said... one could argue that if Walcott won the first fight (majority) and was dominating.. LITERALLY dominating and outclassing Louis for the majority of the second fight. Not just for a few rounds mind you... for 2/3 of the fight with a KD mixed in their. That as far as rounds go.. Walcott was had won more rounds.. of that there can be no question. Then when you mix in walcott showboating as the reason for the KO.. which he was clearly doing directly before the KO.. The lines become blurred a little imo. Sure you can still feel a KO is mroe decisive either way.. but in either case Walcott proved to be the superior boxer as Louis never got any KO until walcott was clowing him and showboating.. he didn't outbox him for the KO.. The qualm isn't here really.. it's the absurdity to say the majority are bat**** crazy.. while the minority are sane and just.. is well.. LITERALLY laughable. I know you teach math my friend... but I believe you need to expand your horizons to logical thinking courses in yoru spare time.

 

You can say similar things about Charles Burley and even Harry Greb

 

You misunderstand me my child.

Those who saw the fight, scored the rounds and felt jersey won more rounds than Louis, they aren't bat**** crazy, they're people making their judegement of a subjective fight.

I have no qualms with them, I consider de la Hoya to have beaten Mosley second time out despite the official score as I don't see 7 rounds I can score for shane.

i just disagree with overruling the decision of a fight you haven't seen. When I cant produce my own card I will go with the official line.

Hell if you had full footage of the fight who's to say you wouldn't thing Louis won more rounds yourself?

Holyfield v Valuev had something like a 98% vote for value winning, I think holy won close but clear.

 

When analysing history it's objective to compare and contrast sources. Official verdicts are often incorrect, to take it as your only source lacks objective rationality.

Now I know you're only doing this as you want a hard and fast rule and not because your biased. Still it's wide of the mark to call people 'bat **** crazy' because they feel the balance of evidence shows the official verdict is wrong.

Didn't you also used to consider Langford won certain fights you hadn't seen? Or have you changed your mind?

 

Louis must feel like a fool for being dropped twice by cutesy Walcott. The feinting and jiving was all for show. Charles, Louis, and Marciano never got walked into anything. They're all just overrated

He out-boxed Louis for 25 rounds until getting caught and stopped by arguably the greatest puncher and finisher at HW. That's a fact.

These are arguments against his greatness, I guess. Obviously Charles is a superior fighter than Walcott, and a superior technician. No shame in that. Charles is one of the greatest if not greatest fighter there ever was. An underrated HW too.

 

Yeah I used to side with the majority in every fight I read about but it doesn't sit well with me anymore.

For instance I used to consider flowers not beating Greb and walker not beating flowers. Now I just go the opposite.

I have no issue with analysing secondary info and it is important from a contextual perspective, but I currently dont like making a judgement of a fight I can't see myself.

News paper decisions change all the time as more papers get dug up so when there's considerable votes going both ways I consider that a draw. Official results I just tend to let the officials decide who takes a close fight. If I can score it myself then obviously I go with my scorecard.

You're right it's all about me finding a level of consistency I'm happy with. And atm I'm happy with sticking by the results unless I can score it myself.

The bat**** crazy comment was just banter, I enjoy baiting kurupt when we disagree, the guy is so passionate :good

 

Yes, he did. He was embarrassed.

I wouldn't say that.
It backfired on Walcott in the 2nd Louis fight though, he shimmy'd his way into getting KTFO, so maybe.

No, they are rated about right.
Joe Louis is rated as an ATG, and he was well past his best when he KO'd Walcott.
Ezzard Charles is rated as an elite ATG light-heavy, and went 2-2 with Walcott.
Marciano is rated as an ATG and KO'd Walcott twice.
Walcott is rated as very good heavy champion.

Well, he didn't win 24 consecutive rounds on anyone's card.

 

Louis still had a lot left in the tank in 1947 when Walcott fought him. Look at what he did to Mauriello in 46 a year earlier.