Very good or great? Volume 10: Jersey Joe Walcott

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Boxed Ears, Apr 15, 2013.


Page 9 of 21
  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,366
    21,814
    Sep 15, 2009
    Maybe I will one day.

    Only highlights exist, not full footage of each round.

    Louis did win the fight. It was closely contested. Louis did stop him in the rematch. Them's the facts.
     
    lufcrazy, Apr 17, 2013
    lufcrazy, Apr 17, 2013
    #121
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005

    Ezzard Charles
    Harold Johnson
    Jimmy Biviins

    Beating all 3 of those men in/near their prime is highly impressive mcgrain. Also when you consider Walcott should have received a nod over a past his prime but still great Joe Louis in 47, it makes it an ATG resume.
     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    #122
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Not closely contested, hotly contested and disputed. One of the most controversial decisions of all time.
     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    #123
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    Of course. Nobody is disputing that. I would point out that these guys are all likely better LHW's than HW's though, Bivins the possible exception.
     
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    #124
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    What did Louis do to win the fight? Walcott knocked him down twice, louis walked into every trap Walcott laid all night, Louis clearly got outjabbed, Walcotts movement/slick moves ruined louis rythem all night long, walcott controlled the ring generalship, walcott landed all the clean hard punches, walcott outboxed him, outsmarted him....Outside of a nice louis round 9, walcott dominated the fight. Walcott ran away late because the fight was in the bag.
     
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    SuzieQ49, Apr 17, 2013
    #125
  6. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Those fighters you named have wins that compare to Walcott? You don't say... I'll just take a few names (some by the way do have comparable wins) Not sure why Sam is even on your list.. Anyways... which wins of Dixie Kid... Freddie.. Bud.. and Fidel compare to Walcott's.. Which specific wins?

    mcGrain you're better than this... You do know what rare means right? i know you do... Think about it.. this is a point you can't win.. EVER. Do you know how many boxers there have been in the history of the sport? See where I'm going with this? It's rare to have the wins that Walcott has.. There is no way around that. To go further and expand on our specific discussion... even if you name me 30 fighters you feel have as good of wins as Jersey Joe and not universally considered great.. That would still be rare. There are no two ways about it. The fighters you named originally falls short as I've proven. Now you tried a new list... which I'm now calling into question...

    Gans was a great win.. I already said so.. but to act liek he was as experienced against world class foes and of the same calibur of as Charles was is even more nonsense. Gans was a great win.. but the rest of his list falls short of Walcott just as I stated.

    Did you forget Jersey Joe was also boxing above what some might consider his best weight. You act like Jersey was some kinda huge HW.. He was a small HW and easily fought below HW. So not only was Charles younger than Joe.. he was also above his best weight like Jersey.

    It means you fall to take into account the context of some of those losses.. Sam Langford had a number of losses that I wouldn't consider great foes... Same with Duran... even the fighters you listed have losses to not so stellar people. **** look at the losses SRR has. Losses can be an indicator of something.. no denying that.. but when go deeper in the the context of Jersey's losses you should see a pattern there.

    Still waiting on your answer to how you voted on the Patterson thread? Great or very good?
     
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    #126
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,366
    21,814
    Sep 15, 2009
    you'd have to check with mcgrain but I think I'm right saying that the huge majority had it 8-7 one way or the other.

    That is closely contested.

    I'm not saying it wasn't controversial, it was and it warranted a rematch. A rematch in which Louis knocked him out.
     
    lufcrazy, Apr 17, 2013
    lufcrazy, Apr 17, 2013
    #127
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    You've completely mis-understood. The fighters at the TOP of these lists, in bold, are victors over the fighters that are listed below. That makes these two fighters examples of fighters who have beaten great fighters, very much comparable to Walcott, who are not universally considered great, thereby answering the question you asked about ten pages ago "what other fighters have beaten blah blah but are not considered great." There are many other examples, but I feel now that I have given enough.

    k, you are having difficulty understanding what I am saying, and you do not seem to remember what it is you are arguing about.

    YOU implied that Walcott was alone in beating great fighters but not being considered great. I have provided examples of fighters that directly contradict this point. This is in no way about "how many fighters there have been in the history of the sport". That is ****ing ridiculous and a total waste of my time.

    You've completely mis-understood what I wrote above, and you seem confused about the points you yourself are making.

    But this has absolutely nothing to do with your original point? Re-read what you yourself have written in this thread.


    But you didn't say "against world class foes" and you didn't say "experienced". You said INexpereinced:

    You are making absolutely no sense about any of this.


    What??? He boxed something like four fights under the heavy limit when he was a teenager? Are you now trying to say that he was a natural light-heavyweight??

    Where?!?...

    Not as an adult :lol:

    This is ****ing disgraceful.

    OK, but can you do what I asked you to or not? I've gone to great effort to produce the examples you asked for, can you do the same for me? Or not? I

    I dread to think what could occur in your trying to hold a discussion about two of these fighters, but I would rank Patterson above Walcott on my all time top 200. I have absolutely no interest in debating this specifically with you here at least until you are making sense about the rest of this.
     
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    #128
  9. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011

    You're a funny guy McGrain... Let's clear some things up here.... first.. Dave holly does has an impressive list that can compare to Walcott's wins... Battlino not as much.. though impressive. Even still, I've only see ONE fighter that I think has as impressive wins as Joe... Only one and you've tried a few times now. It's rare to have those kinda wins and not be great... I'm not sure how that can be argued.

    You're better than this McGrain.. you really are... You INTENTIONALLY left out the part of my post the SPECIFICALLY talks about what we were talking about... Fighters who aren't considered great but have the resume of Joe. I addressed the rare issue in two parts.. first part making it clear ti's rare to have those kinda wins considering all the fighters that ever fought. THEN I went on to address our specific convo we took further.. and went on to say.. that even if you could name 30 fighters with as good of wins as Walcott who aren't considred great that is STILL rare. I'm starting to think you don't know what rare means. Even if you named 50 guys (which you can't come close to doing) that have as good of wins.. that would still be rare company. As it is, you're lucky to name 5 with as good of wins. That is even more rare... So, as you can see.. it's certainly rare company to have those kinda wins and not be rare.

    I said he was short in the tooth.. to which you replied he was 70-4... to which I replied that he wasn't as experienced as Charles.. too which you replied he was consdiered the best in the world. To which I replied.. he didn't face the same calibur of opponent as Charles had and thus me sayign he wasn't as experienced as charles was spot on. There are many facets of experience.. you can be experienced with a 100 fights against cans.. are you expereinced.. sure you've had many fights. Then there is experienced against world class foes and only fought 40 times. Yet, I would claim the guy with 40 fights is more experienced at the world class level. So as you can see, I was spot on with saying Charles was more experienced.

    I know he had very few fights at LHW.. What i'm saying is.. he could've easily trained down VERY little and fought there his whole career. It wouldn't have taken very much to do so was my point. Yes he fought at HW most of his career but he wasn't a big HW is my point. Tell me something.. do you consider Maxim and Ray to be HW's?

    So you did call patterson great.. tell me.. does he have wins that can compare to Walcott's? ****, do the losses he has to the ATG's he faced compare to how Walcott did against the ATG's he lost 2?
     
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    #129
  10. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Because moore wasn't a natural HW.. he was well above his best weight and not a spring chicken either. Moore was no doubt great.. I don't even think a thread needs to be made about him being great or very good.. he's great.. However, he wasn't a great HW nor was the Moore that Patterson beat great for those reasons.
     
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    #130
  11. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Did you see my post... do you think the highlights can be an indicator of the overall fight.. especially when coupled with all the other stuff I named?
     
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    #131
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    Holly's best wins are superior to Walcott's wins.

    Depending upon how you weigh it you can go either way on this. But the point is now made. There are other fighters that have the same type of wins as Walcott who, like Walcott are not universally considered great. I hope this addresses your original point fully.

    Except he lost to Joe. Twice. This is an absolute fact and you better make you peace with it because it makes you look more ridiculous every time you pretend it isn't true: Louis beat Walcott twice. This is true. This will be true when you have been dead one-thousand years. When you summit to heaven and meet St.Peter at the gates and he directs you to your loved ones and you live the next three millennium with those loved ones and one day your brow creases as you remember the earthbound tortures that beset you before you emraced God's own bliss: Joe Louis will still hold two wins over Walcott, one close, disputable, certainly disputed, and one by stone-cold knockoutout.

    I disagree with you. I name the twenty-five year old Gans McFadden beat as a better scalp than past-prime Louis, though Walcott didn't beat Louis, I name the Langford, coming off a victory over Gans and shortly to draw with Barbados Joe, that Holly beat a better scalp than past-prime Joe Louis, although Walcott did not beat Louis, and I think you can argue that a prime Ike Williams is better than past-prime Louis, though Walcott did not beat past-prime Louis.

    It's not that rare, as I've already demonstrated, but it depends upon your definition of rare I suppose. Having said that, it is clear that a fighter CAN have these type of wins without universally being recognized as great, whereas you original point seemed to be that this was not possible.

    You keep saying this. What do you mean?

    Yes, it is true that I am not quoting your entire post. You, on the other hand, ARE quoting my entire post, but you are hardly dealing with anything I have written. I, on the other hand, am dealing with almost all that you are writing. But if you feel i have left some crucial point aside, please speak up.

    Of course it is. That's like saying **** stinks or water is wet. If this is really your point we are in entire agreement. But what on earth do you think it means? How do you think it counts in any way at all in Walcott's favour? Why on earth harp upon this absolutely meaningless completely given fact for post after post after post?

    I feel i've named six or seven now, but even if i just named one i would have considered this as negating the point you were trying to make, to whit, someone with Walcott's resume must be ranked great because everyone who has such a resume is.

    Right, that's fine, it's rare then.

    No you did NOT reply that wasn't as experienced, you said he "wasn't as INexperienced. I quoted this post in our last exchanges so you would see that, but you haven't.

    Gans was not "short in the tooth" and he was one of the best in the world. The win is directly comparable to Walcott over Charles on his third attempt. That should be the end of that.

    :lol: except you didn't say that.

    Walcott was a career hw. Maybe he could have trained down without ill affects, maybe he couldn't have. He wasn't that much bigger than Charles and Bivins and Johnson, but he was bigger.

    Ray was a hw, yes.

    I rank Patterson higher because he does not have the harmful losses that drag Walcott down, among other reasons.

    A point i've asked you to address three times now but that you steadfastly refuse to do so.
     
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    #132
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    He was as natural as Charles, bigger than Johnson, as natural as Bivins, who you are trying to claim as some of the greatest wins going.
     
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    #133
  14. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,814
    Aug 26, 2011
    Okay... every scorecard is close under that criteria which didn't give 10-8 rounds to Walcott... Which is why there was an investigation into scoring in boxing for that very reason. Would you say then.. that if the fight was judged under modern criteria of scoring.. Walcott likely would have won?
     
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    KuRuPT, Apr 17, 2013
    #134
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,067
    Mar 21, 2007
    But it was not scored under that criteria. You need to stop pretending it matters that if that fight was scored under the ten-points must system. It is utterly irrelevant and everyone who has tried to interact with you over it is telling you so.

    Gans would have beaten Barbados Joe under the system Louis and Walcott met under - so what? How is that relevant in any way? The job of the fighter in question is to win the fight according to his ruleset, which is what Louis did - in this instance, apparently by landing more punches.

    Trying to change the scoring system under which the fight is appraised to change the result to your liking is stupid in the third degree.
     
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    McGrain, Apr 17, 2013
    #135
Page 9 of 21