Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

Armstrong yes... and clear ATG but you are also leaving out the fact that Henry was already long in the tooth when Joyce beat him... **** an even further past his best Henry ended up beating Joyce. Funny you didn't mention that but quick to mention Charles being past his best. Weird considering Charles wasn't even 30. Even weirder, Walcott was OLDER than Charles... So I'd hardly say you can try and discredit the win taking that route. If anything it further solidifies he's greatness being as old as he was and beating Charles.

Gans is a good win, but again, also long in the tooth. However, even if we forget about that for a second... Who ELSE did he beat... Walcott has Maxim x2.. Bivins... Johnson.. Ray x 2.... The rest of mcfarlands names besides Gans don't stack up to that. That isn't even including the victory he should've gotten over Louis.. even if you don't want to call that a win... You should at least admit that Walcott gave Louis the best fight to date. That is say something for an ATG like Louis. Same with Marciano... Walcott also gave him the best fight of his career.

So as you see... it still doesn't stack up... So this whole it isn't even rare.. is a bunch of bull**** and I'll call you on it. It's rare. You can knock his consistency all you want (though in it's proper context.. no backing.. not properly trained.. working side jobs... late starter.. It's easy to see why he wasn't consistent. Try and knock that all you want. but don't feed me bs like it isn't rare to have the names on Walcott's resume that he has. It's rare. Period.

 

If kurupt is so intent on rewriting the history books due to observes feeling Walcott deserved the Louis fight, what about those who felt Charles beat him 4th time out?

 

Talk about it.. discuss it.. it won't change the fact that more people felt Walcott beat Louis.. **** even louis felt that way.. look at his reaction post fight. It's clear as day.. he was tryign to LEAVE the ring for God's sake. He apologized to Walcott for the decision. He knew he lost.. more writers knew he lost... the ref knew he lost... the fans knew he lost. Just because some Louis apologist want to hold on to.. well we can't see the fight so we'll just go with the verdict doesn't change the above facts. Nor does it change the outcry after the fight that it was a fix.. nor the movement to change the scoring system due to walcott knockign down louis twice and still losing.. while making hiim look "foolish" "outthinking him" he was literally clowning on louis.. LITERALLY. He knew he was superior in there why can't you guys is beyond me.. Ooo i know why.. we can't see the fight and the few quotes of "he forced the fight" "he lead" big WHOOP... he lead only to get clowned on and kd for his troubles. Guess Ramirez should've beaten pea.. since ya know.. he lead and forced the fight..

 

Ok, Let's not re-write history books. Evander Holyfield fought Lennox Lewis to a draw. Agreed?

 

Well I can watch that fight and make up my own mind.

 

You're first point is the best one in this post. Lets not change facts, let us stick with the facts.

Louis defended his title in a hotly contested fight that was close enough it warranted a rematch. In the rematch Louis erased any questions of supremacy by knocking out Jersey.

How do you feel about walcott-Charles 4?

 

Charles-Walcott IV is on youtube, watch it then and make up your own mind.

Also Louis-Walcott I is on youtube, hl of every round. In that, we see walcott outboxing, outsmarting, outjabbing louis all while putting him on his ass twice

 

It was a robbery. One of the top 5 most controversial decisions in boxing history. I think in the rematch Walcott proved it wasn't a fluke by once again easily outboxing louis and winning 7 of the first 10 rounds. Louis showed why he is the greatest of all time by pulling out that combination.

 

YOU mentioned the Armstrong win while in the same breath saying Charles was past his best. Charles was YOUNGER than Walcott or Armstrong. How does that help prove your point.. It doesn't.. it only reinforces mine.

Show me where I said vastly superior? Point that out for me or concede I never said that. What I am saying.. and what you STILL haven't done.. is name me a fighter with the wins that compare to Walcott who isn't considered great. You have YET to do that for me. Yet, in the same breath act like it's a everyday thing i.e. "hardly rare"

That should've said SHORT in the tooth.. which as you know is true.. That said I think that Gans was superior to the armstrong example you used and no doubt an great win.. even with gans being slightly green if that. No it's not better than any Walcott win... that just isn't true. Charles was on a dominating run.. world champion of the world and he was KO'd. Charles was vastly more inexperienced than Gans and on a better run than Gans against better fighters. So this whole not arguable is a joke, and I might add, not a good one.

So which is it?? Is it rare to amaze wins over some ATG and very good fighters as Walcott has or is that not rare and a normal thing? I'm waiting for a concession on this point. It most certainly is rare.. you may dispute the fact that such wins don't make you great as you need more things.. but it's certainly rare.

Are you forgetting the context of some of those losses? Did the whole part about him fighting PART TIME.. having night jobs.. no backing.. little to no training. I'm honestly are you claiming these things won't effect your consistency or record? Please tell me you're not.

Lastly, how did you vote on the Patterson thread... I might it mind boggling that he's voted great as we speak.. while being beaten by EVERY ATG he ever faced... Not just beat.. but blasted out of there or outclassed. Say what you want about Walcott and the Louis and Marciano fights.. But Walcott wasn't outclassed nor was he blasted out of there with ease. He was utterly dominating both times he did lose by KO and those were well well into the fight 11th and 13th rounds. While giving both Louis and marciano the best challenges of their career till that point. Far far superior to Patterson when matched up to fellow greats.

 

Of course it isn't Orriray.. but when you couple what we see (walcott getting the better of louis) WITH.. the fan outcry.. the sportswriters voting for walcott (even though walcott wasn't near as popular as Louis).. the ref voting for Walcott... Louis wanting to leave the ring and apologizing to Joe... the out cry after the fight for a change in scoring an a investigation. Then when we pick up the second fight... we see the SAME things we saw in the few highlights of fight no. 1 but expanded upon with more footage. We see Jersey clowning on joe and dominating the fight. He won 7 out of 10 rounds on the cards for God's sake. So when you couple how confident Jersey was in the second fight and the dominating fashion he was outboxing Louis.. it does give an indicator on what might have gone on in fight no. 1 right?