Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

you know how thistle works, lace up the gloves and you're an atg :good

 

You'd think with his criteria and knowledge booze's rankings would be half decent.

 

:good

 

Here's an extract from Bukowski's book named Factotum :

She laughed at me. She had her legs crossed high and she kicked her feet; she had nice legs, high heels, and she kicked her legs and laughed. I picked up my suitcase and began to approach her up the walk. As I did I noticed a side curtain on a window to my left move just a bit. I saw a black man's face. He looked like Jersey Joe Wolcott. I backed down the pathway to the sidewalk. Her laughter followed me down the street.

Sounds like a guy great enough to make his way as a reference in a book... but the error in his name could mean he's not that great... :blood

 

:goodI aim to please!

Just keep greatness special, there are other words to describe Walcott's career.

 

Ouch, that was a cheap shot. My rankings are... unique!

 

I think one of the main reasons why Wallcott should be considered great is the fact his greatest achievements came at such an old age. The oldest heavyweight champion in history for over 40 years. I'm a little bit dissapointed no ones even mentioned this yet :-(

 

ha, ha, ha

JJW is an absolute, as are many, but they have to stand out for a thing or two, at the very least! :deal

 

I just voted.

 

Very good.

Wait, where am I?

 

I choose both.


You should widen the playing field of possible entrants and do a companion series boxed.:yep

Shite, quite pish, mediocre, unskilled wokhorse, serviceable on his day, quite decent against certain styles, average, solid but unspectacular, good yet far from special, very good, excellent yet lacking that certain x factor, arguable great, all-time great or top table?

 

I like McGrain's account of the fight and what he wrote there. I don't think anybody.. including me.. has said it was a robbery.. I don't think it was one. I think it was the wrong verdict no doubt.. but a close enough fight that it couldn't be a robbery. The scoring system should've been on trial, because as we know, the current system of awarding fighters for KD's is better. My point is, I have never viewed the fight as a robbery. I feel it was the wrong decision and more people echo that sentiment than feel it was a good one. When you apply the current criteria, it becomes even more clear imo. A robbery though, it wasn't that as Louis clearly did enough to make it a very competitive fight. I will say that I feel the vote tally is even more impressive for Walcott... Louis was a hero.. a beloved champion (rightlfully so).. and the fact that a majority still voted for Walcott (not nearly as loved) speaks volumes to me about what they must've seen. The new york press report I take with a grain a salt.. it reads like.. Yeah he outthought and made the other guy look foolish but lost because the other guy did the leading.. HUH?? If you're out thought and made to look foolish you generally more times than not LOSE not win. What good is leading if you're being made to look foolish. Would the NY Press give Ramirez the victory over Pea because he lead.. even though he was made to look foolish?? Seems odd to me.

 

Has Johnny Tapia been done?

Ricardo Lopez? :hey

 

Sorry Booze, ya' know I'm just jesting Sir. :good