Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

Obviously many hold his early career where he was a part time fighter.. no backing.. not good trainers or training against him... It's lame imo... Most any fighter would be inconsistent when you rarely train and don't have proper handling. Yet, this is the reason people refuse to say he's great

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

Elmer Ray is another example but unlike Walcott, he did not have a style suited to longevity.

 

you can't use the scoring for the second fight to evaluate the scoring for the first fight mate.

 

Please watch the second fight and tell me how a judge could have louis up in that fight? It's not a bid deal to watch it and see how you score it.

 

Why do you keep acting like it's somehow relevant that some ringside reporters had it for Louis.. as if that has more relevance than MORE ringside reporters having it for Walcott That is even MORE relevant. So.. I don't know why you keep insisting some ringside reporters carries more weight than the majority saying it was a bad decision. I mean to me... the accounts plus...at the end of the fight how things transpired... Prior to the fight.. the crowd was clearly pro Louis.. cheering the loudest for him.. Fight over... Louis tries to leave the ring.. The crowd booing loudly at the decision and cheering vigoursly when Walcott's hand is raised. I mean really.. guess you're telling me all those people and the majority of reporters got it wrong. Sorry I don't buy it.

Watch the second fight.. as I asked luf to do.. score what you see.. tell me how Louis could be up on a card there... Then ask yourself.. hmmmm maybe this shows exactly how they got it wrong the first time. Not a hard logical leap. With walcott clearly winning the second fight.. yet a judge still has Louis ahead.. Goes to show you how bad judges can be and how liked Louis truly was. No way was he ahead in that second fight. Watch it and score those rounds.

 

will watch it eventually mate. I've seen the ko plenty of times. Walcott shuffling straight into a guys shot and the trying to punch his way out of trouble in one of the stupidest decisions in hw history. Right up there with Conn.

I mean why the **** would you stand and trade with the brown bomber?

Anyways I will score it eventually but like you, I've never heard anyone claim Louis was up before now.

 

Which goes to show, again, the sway Louis had with the judges. It's pretty obvious this is true with anybody having him up in that fight. You don't that could be an indication of what happened in the first fight?

Of course, you're totally right.. it was idiotic... he was just so overconfident I believe from outboxing for so many rounds. He shuffled so many times and got away with it.. and was dominating even more this time out.. and figured he could get away with it. A terrible mistake and louis made him pay for that showboating. It was also stupid to get stunned and then try and bomb his way out of being in trouble. Though, I suppose some of that could do with him being hit with a right in the first fight and flurring his way out of that and KD louis.. maybe he thought that would work again.. Bad idea to do with the best combination puncher finisher in HW history.

 

I don't think it was a robbery either.. a robbery is Whitaker vs. Ramirez or Whitaker vs. chavez.. I think fight no. 1 was closer than those. I think that is evident by the ringside reporters.. and the judges. So we're in agreement there.. I just think they got it wrong is all. Lastly, I'd say the MOST relevant person in the fight was the judge and ref Mr. G and he had it for Walcott but your point is taken none the less. Thanks and I look forward to seeing your scores.

 

No because I don't have the first fight available to watch so I don't know how fair the cards are. As I've said many time, given 45 minutes of action you too might feel Louis won the fight.

 

Or that you keep finding it irelevant than the judges and some reporters had it for Louis.

 

Heavyweights don't need to dry out at all, it was superstition/ignorance really. Louis did so against the advice of his trainer, from what I've heard.
Maybe it's true, maybe not.
Dehydration SERIOUSLY weakens fighters, that much is true. And it can occur rather quickly and easily.

I would dispute that Walcott suffered from 'starvation' when he went up against Abe Simon. I find it very unlikely. A 'starved' Walcott would be about 145 pounds. Starvation is not a term that should be thrown around willy-nilly.

Broken/injured hands are part of the game, and possibly the most often used excuse in the book.

I mean, every fighter Louis and Walcott beat probably has a good excuse too !

 

these days, probably around 15 of them, if we're rating them all going back to Sullivan.
I guess there's less than 20.

 

I dont believe in having a set number of what makes an atg. Otherwise that implies an atg can lose their status because someone comes along at a later date.

 

Certain divisions are deeper than others also.

By the way, I think Walcott will become one of the most hated fighters on the forum the way his case is being fought. It's too much.

 

i would not argue with the statement 'walcott was a great fighter'
but in the context of the series very good is probably the accurate answer

i dont get the fuss about the louis decision, he pushed louis but doesnt seem to have done too much damage, close fights happen all the time and judges dont score draws as often as i'd like to see.