Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

I'm stealing top table.

The inner machinations of my mind...

 

Walcott lost to Abe Simon in 1940, when he was a part time fighter, deprived of food, training, management..everything needed for a fighter to be at his best. He still easily outboxed Simon the first 5 rounds before sucumbing in the 6th due to sheer exhaustion, and a simon right hand finished him off.

How does Simon do vs a Post 1945 Walcott who had proper full time training(Florio), managment(Bocchichio), Nutrition???? Walcott wins rather easily.


That should answer your question unforgiven.




Jersey Joe Walcott was absolutely great


1. He went through an entire murders row of top 10 contenders to earn his title shot, beating 8 of the top 10 ranked ring magazine fighters in a 3 year span practically cleaning out the division.

2. He ended duration hw champion and hall of famer jimmy bivins 4 year undefeated streak.

3. Defeated what the newspapers called the biggest threat out there to Louis,(Elmer Ray), twice.

4. Lost in one of the most controversial decisions of all time to all time great heavyweight champion Joe Louis, in a fight most thought Walcott won. Walcott put on an absolute great performance that night.

5. Knocked out hall of famer Harold Johnson

6. Knocked out long time reining heavyweight champion ezzard charles with 1 punch to become the oldest man to win the HW title, perhaps the greatest executed knockout in boxing history, and followed that up with a decision victory evening the score with ATG Charles.

7. Gave a prime hall of fame champion Rocky Marciano his toughest fight, was leading on the cards after 12 rounds at the age of 38.

8. His style was that of a slick unorthodox technician with knockout power in either hand....a very rare style in boxing history.

 

Applying the mustard on me titties. :tong

 

Good post Suzie :good I'd love to see Tszyu, Calzaghe and Moorer put under the very good or great microscope.

 

JJW was too good to be great!!!

 

I think it's pretty obvious he was a great fighter. Skills aside (which are incredible) he had a pretty solid resume given all the times he was robbed. KO'd charles, decisioned charles, beat Louis (imo), gave Marciano a run for his money, beat Johnson, Bivins, etc.

 

If the OP had made the "very good or great" thread about Marciano, everyone would say he was great. A 38 year old Walcott was outboxing Marciano all-night before Marciano landed one very powerful shot. If you matched up a prime Walcott and a prime Marciano in 100 hypothetical matches, Walcott would come out on top. His fight with Louis, a controversial loss cements his greatness.

 

lol. based on the footage we have, I think walcott won. I only can go off of that and newspaper reports.

 

Another thing is Walcott might not have the resume of most "great" fighters, but it's undeniable he has the skills of one. I'd really like to see somebody say otherwise.

 

I agree wish Marcel and Lamotta could of had their second fight Marcel could have been one of the best Middleweights ever i think.

 

And his dad... :hat

 

Maybe I'm seeing things, BE, but there appears to be a pattern here throughout all of the volumes of your polling.

It relates to the order of the poll, as in

Very Good
Great



or


Great
Very Good.



It seems the order is the deciding factor in all cases.

Or could I be mistaken ?

 

FFS people claiming they feel he beat Louis :nut

 

This content is protected

 

Whichever has more votes ends up being listed first.

Anyway we can all agree that Walcott is the greatest fighter with a losing record against losing opposition.