Vitali Klitschko vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Wally only plays with Peter like Jane only as long as he doesn't get tagged... Wally had a shaky chin... Peter could whack if nothing else... If Wally got careless like he did in '48 against Louis, Wally see's stars against an in-shape 238 pound Peter via a time machine...

MR.BILL:bbb

 

"oddsmakers treated Walcott like a bum being led to the slaughter in 47"

He was a 10-1 underdog. Schmeling was an 8-1 underdog in 1936. Godoy a 10-1 underdog in 1940. Buddy Baer a 10-1 underdog in 1942. Louis got the longest odds of any champion. Abe Simon was 18-1 in 1941.

For the second Walcott fight, the odds shortened to 13-5, the lowest of any of Louis' title defenses except for Schmeling at 9-5.

"They were wrong"

Which makes me wonder why you are making such a big point of these odds.

ANYONE in the world would have been considered a huge underdog, in the 10 to 1 or so region, in 1947, to Louis. Walcott might have had the shortest odds anyone would have gotten. Louis at this point had entered the plane of legend or myth and I think was probably viewed as pretty much invincible. Folks couldn't imagine him losing.

"Jersey Joe had been ko'd quite a bit."

This is true enough but it could be misleading in Walcott's case. Counting only the fights in his "comeback" after the war when he devoted himself completely to boxing, he was stopped 3 times in 37 fights, once by Louis and twice by Marciano. Put another way, going into his title defense against Marciano, he had been stopped one time in his previous 35 fights and that by Joe Louis.

And he had been fighting the best fighters in the world fight after fight. I don't know if the same can be said of Vitali. Walcott might have had a sturdier chin than you credit.

 

I would question Peter's durability and punching power.

His one big ko is over Maskaev, who was stopped 7 times in 43 fights.

Peter himself has been stopped 3 times in 39 fights, and he is still a young man.

Walcott was much the better fighter.

 

Peter, like Shavers before, could punch, but made a career / penchant outta kayoing "D, C & B" grade dude's.... Come the A-Team, Peter and Shavers normally lost.... Yet, neither Shavers or Peter were ever really beaten to a pulp by a dude 195 pounds.....

Greats of the 40s and 50s like "Marciano, Charles and Walcott" would have to be at their best to topple well tuned, yet limited skilled guys like "Shavers and Peter... Power would be a key part in these type of matches....... "Shavers and Peter" would match-up well in the power category....

MR.BILLbbb

 

I've basically resigned myself to claiming V.K. beats Joe Wally via a time machine... I ain't backing away, neither....... My gut feeling all the way...:bbb

MR.BILL:hat

 

Remind me which fight Chris Byrd hurt Wladimir in? Or at least which fight?

 

Byrd got his ass kicked by BOTH Wlad and Vitali in 2000 and 2006...... Byrd just got a heavenly gift against V.K. due to Vitali Klit's torn shoulder....... Byrd was BEHIND all 3 fights......... Why do some folks try to make a big deal for Byrd when he was losing each outing?
:huh

MR.BILL:bbb

NOTE:

No pun toward Ruskull.....

 

Bill-

The realist understands all this.

Give the Classicists their room to fantasize.

 

Not p4p, from a hw sense. Walcott has beaten much better quality of heavyweights than vitali has.

P.s. Byrd didn't get his arse kicked by vitali. Wlad pushed his **** in but vitali was outlanded and quit.

 

Disagree... I'm not buying.....:-(

MR.BILL:bbb

 

10-4.:good

MR.BILL:yep

 

You must agree jersey has beaten better hw's than vitali, that **** aint up for debate!

 

"Shavers and Peter"

These guys are supposed to be linked together as punchers. Why not Dempsey and Loughran or Marciano and Maxim or Louis and Dorazio.

Peter has ko'd one glass-jawed top fighter, Maskaev. There is no reason to put him in Shavers' class as a puncher--or Walcott's for that matter.


*Shavers . . . would match up well in the power department."

So did Bob Satterfield.

 

"realist"

That was the term used by the fellows who told me back in the sixties we were winning in Vietnam and that me and my buddies had to go and fight and maybe die.

Realist is the term used by those who have no good arguments to brace up their bad ones.

(after all, there is nothing at all realistic about discussing a fight between Walcott and Vitali)

 

or those who are tired of repeating the same self-evident truths, weary of battling the dual sets of standards that sustain others' fragile mythologies, and think intellectual repetition is both tedious and soul-numbing.