Without Marciano who beats Walcott for the title?

In Joe Louis' autobiography, Joe Louis - My Life he states something to the effect "... so Charles matches with Walcott again, and damned if Walcott doesn't knock him out. So now they have to rematch, and Walcott wants no part of me."

 

So? That doesn't mean Walcott refused to face him.

That would be like right now, Wilder claiming Fury wants no part of him, when we know very well Fury is obligated to rematch Wlad.

And in the 50s to 60s, it was standard practice that every title change saw an immediate return match in every instance.

Charles\Walcott IV
Marciano\Walcott II
Patterson\Ingo II
Ingo\Patterson III
Patterson\Liston II
Ali\Liston II

Charles deserved the oppoturunity to reclaim his crown. Louis would have been next in line had he maintained his outstanding contender status over Marciano as he was favored to do.

 

Always, by its very definition is an absolute ,it allows no leeway whatsoever.


I made no mention of time dates so you sliding in 1944 in an insidious attempt to move the gaol posts ,won't wash.

Walcott was beaten by :
Henry Taylor
Al Ettore
Billy Ketchel
Tiger Jack Fox
George Brothers
Roy Lazer
Abe Simon
Rex Layne
He did not rematch them after being beaten
.Seldom is not an absolute,that is why I used it.
Stop frothing at the mouth.

 

Lastarrza would have had a good chance. He could box and he could punch a bit. Always in top condition. As a matter of fact, he blamed overtraining for his poor performance in the second Marciano fight. Roland did not have good connections though. He did not have what is called live-wire management.

 

Lastarza was very astutely managed ,imo.

 

Wrong thread

 

He did rematch Tiger Jack.

You are just being bitter and desperate, arguing semantics and ignoring the actual point.

The well managed post 44 Walcott is relevant to the topic at hand, and who is being discussed. We know this Walcott was proficient at reversing loses, and what the overall point was.

My point stands, yours does not.I don't care if my word choice agrees with you, hide behind worthless ambiguous phrases all you want and argue what "seldom" means to you, going down that path you aren't saying anything.

I love your self flattery, maybe I'll punctuate my post with something similar. Stop ****ing your pants.

 

What have I to be bitter about? Ive just got confirmation of two holiday arrangments and will be booking another 2 this year.
Life isn't just good for me it is WONDERFUL!!!!!
I hope I come across as MR Smug to you ,because that is exactly my intention! Now to the business at hand.

You made a statement that, and I quote:


"Prior to Marciano, Walcott always did better in rematches" .
I proved he didn't rematch all those who beat him.
Realising your error,instead of just admitting it ,[as I've just done below,] you then introduced a timescale in a blatant attempt to disguise it.

Tiger Jack Fox did fight Walcott twice so I was wrong there , but so were you because he won the rematch too!
l I want to tell you ,I am very glad you hate my guts so much that it distorts your judgement and exposes you as a sad individual incapable of admitting they are ever wrong. Long may it be so!

 

I've explained what should have been evident enough, nothing more to add except....

This is a pretty sad post. Even the actual boxing part makes no sense. How does rematches not fought contradict a claim about actual rematch performances? It doesn't.

 

This is your post..
"Prior to Marciano, Walcott always did better in rematches."

Walcott fought Ezzard Charles 4 times he lost the first 2, so he didn't do better in that rematch.
He lost both of his fights to Tiger Jack Fox ,so he didn't do better in that rematch.
He lost both of his fights with Joe Louis being ko'd in the second ,so he certainly didn't do better in that rematch!

Wouldn't it have been simpler for you just to say "yes actually I was wrong he didn't always do better?

The fact that you couldn't bring yourself to say so is what is SAD here.:---(

Enjoyed talking to you!:hi:

 

I already agreed that I was careless with an adverb.

However, you know very well that I'm aware of the Charles and Louis fights, and what my intended point was.

You can address that point if you disagree with it or spend post after post pathetically pating yourself on the back because of a semantic disagreement.

It can be argued Walcott did do better in the Charles and Louis rematches anyway. Before being stopped he was more convincing in outpointing Louis, and the first Charles rematch was disputed with the verdict booed.

Or maybe you can address the actual point?

 

It can be argued by you , but no one who is objective
.He was more convincing until he was KTFO?
Moreover you are arguing from a position of ignorance because you haven't seen the full version of the first Louis fight, so to make a statement like that is absurd.
I proved my point and you still can't bring yourself to admit you are ever wrong.

 

My point was Walcott should be favored over Layne in a rematch, because Walcott "almost" always rebounded from defeat to improve on past performances and avenge losses. I've cited enough examples to back that claim up.

What is your point? What are you trying to say? Except the same old crying and whining about how I never admit to being wrong except all the times I admit to being wrong.

What was I even wrong about? Do you really believe I was ignorant of the Louis and Charles fights I've discussed on these boards more times than I care to count? Are you too dense to recognize a figurative turn of speech even after it has been stated over and over...that's in fact what it was. And most importantly, what is your point? Do you have one?

Do you wish to argue Walcott was poor in rematches and would lose to Layne because he failed to rematch some guys a decade previously when his career was in the gutter? And that he lost to Louis? Is that your point, because it's ****.

 

My point is simply that you made a statement that was wrong and when I pointed it out, you wriggled and obfuscated as you always do. It's expected now ,so it's just an amusement. Keep safe:hi:

 

No.

You tried to argue a point and tucked tail as usual. Must be sad as hell to be you.

You also know very well I'm aware of the Louis fights and you didn't school on me anything. Keep trying, mcdesperation.