Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

I actually think this is a distasteful thread in honor of Walcott's name. Walcott is a clear cut great fighter. Their is no debate.

 

I would argue that version of Louis(1947) still had most of his power/finishing ability and plenty of handspeed left. That 6 punch combination he finished Walcott with was perhaps the best of his entire career. Look at his Mauriello and Conn fights in 46, he still packed plenty of heat in his fists. I think Louis' finishing ability, handspeed, combination punching severely deteriorated after 1949. The Louis who fought Walcott in 47/48 was a far more dangerous fighter than the one who stepped into the ring vs charles in 50.

 

and that is all that is needed for a fighter to be GREAT.

all the other bull**** is fun, resourseful and fantasy, not always literal, i.e Calzaghe's achievements make him the best ever middle cum l-hw from Britain, ah NO, see Len Harvey for example.

so you are right GREAT fighters are simply those fighters with undenieable Skill, Talent, Proven against Comp even in losses, they can still very much count, and Longievity at the TOP.

so many Calzaghe type achievement greats are beat by numerous fighters past & present when matched EVEN on H2H bases, those are the real greats, the only ones.

all the fun and ratings and fantasy is merely pleasure & opinion, especially among those quick to exclude many, many other great fighters when comparing.

 

I was referring to Ernesto Marcel.

 

That is why Marciano is undisputedly an ATG and Walcott isn't you spastic.

 

As gentle and deferential way of answering the thread question as I could think of...

 

I think Moorer's resume is slightly underrated, but you may be right. The Foreman loss will always over shadow his accomplishments and he seemed to lose his motivation for the sport after the second Holyfield fight.

 

Maybe be a bit clearer next time...
:thumbsup

 

Suzie, no offense, but clearly there is a debate.

 

Walcott is a great fighter. Period.

 

This is a shocking stance. There is clearly a debate hence the thread.

 

Didn't see this but even these names that you listed aren't on the same level as the names Walcott beat.. let alone should've beaten. Any others, since ya know, "it isn't even rare" ?

 

Charles past his prime when Walcott faced him? In 1949 Charles was 27 years old. In 1951, when Walcott knocked Charles out, Charles was only 29 years old, champion of the world, and hadn't lost in 4 years.

 

This poll result is laughable. If Walcott doesn't get appointed as a "great", I will leave Eastside Boxing Forum for good, due to the abundance of stupidity by posters.