I mentioned on another that I thought Jersey Joe Walcott was and is vastly underrated by many boxing fans today. Without a doubt, his skills measure up with the best fighters in any era. This is obvious watching him.
He also fought a who's who of the top fighters from his era with mixed results.
Walcott had a career record of 52-17-2(32). He is most remembered for his crushing 13th round ko loss to Rocky Marciano. After that, most fans today see 17 losses on his record and think he couldn't have been any good. But taking a closer look at his record shows that many of his fights were only 1 and 2 months apart. sometimes only weeks. I find it almost inevitable that he would have fought many of his fights with injuries.
Lets take a little closer look at these losses too.

Lost his 7th pro fight by decision.

Lost his 13th fight by ko to Al Ettore, who sported a 52-7-2 record.

Lost his 21st fight by decision to a guy with 68 fights

Lost his 22nd fight to Tiger Jack Fox by ko. Fox was 92-12-7 at the time.

Lost 25th fight by decision.

Lost his 30th and 31st fight by decision.

Lost his 36th fight by ko to Abe Simon, who outweighed him by 65 lbs.

Lost his 40th fight by decision.

Lost decisions in his 53rd and 54th fights to Joey Maxim and Elmer Ray, both by decision.

Lost his 58th fight by decision to Joe Louis. Louis is my favorite fighter of all time, but Walcott won that fight and was robbed.

Lost his 59th fight by ko to Louis.

Lost a decision to Ezzard Charles in his 60th fight

Lost decisions to both Rex Layne and Charles in his 66th and 67th fights

Lost his 70th and 71st fights by ko to Rocky Marciano.

Jersey Joe was never knocked out by second rate comp and fought many all time greats. Among the fighters he beat were such fighters as Elmer "violent" Ray, multiple times. Joey Maxim, multiple times. Harold Johnson. Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins.
And while Walcott doesn't make my heavyweight top ten list, he probably would squeeze into the top 20, and that ain't to bad.

I mentioned on another that I thought Jersey Joe Walcott was and is vastly underrated by many boxing fans today. Without a doubt, his skills measure up with the best fighters in any era. This is obvious watching him.
He also fought a who's who of the top fighters from his era with mixed results.
Walcott had a career record of 52-17-2(32). He is most remembered for his crushing 13th round ko loss to Rocky Marciano. After that, most fans today see 17 losses on his record and think he couldn't have been any good. But taking a closer look at his record shows that many of his fights were only 1 and 2 months apart. sometimes only weeks. I find it almost inevitable that he would have fought many of his fights with injuries.
Lets take a little closer look at these losses too.

Lost his 7th pro fight by decision.

Lost his 13th fight by ko to Al Ettore, who sported a 52-7-2 record.

Lost his 21st fight by decision to a guy with 68 fights

Lost his 22nd fight to Tiger Jack Fox by ko. Fox was 92-12-7 at the time.

Lost 25th fight by decision.

Lost his 30th and 31st fight by decision.

Lost his 36th fight by ko to Abe Simon, who outweighed him by 65 lbs.

Lost his 40th fight by decision.

Lost decisions in his 53rd and 54th fights to Joey Maxim and Elmer Ray, both by decision.

Lost his 58th fight by decision to Joe Louis. Louis is my favorite fighter of all time, but Walcott won that fight and was robbed.

Lost his 59th fight by ko to Louis.

Lost a decision to Ezzard Charles in his 60th fight

Lost decisions to both Rex Layne and Charles in his 66th and 67th fights

Lost his 70th and 71st fights by ko to Rocky Marciano.

Jersey Joe was never knocked out by second rate comp and fought many all time greats. Among the fighters he beat were such fighters as Elmer "violent" Ray, multiple times. Joey Maxim, multiple times. Harold Johnson. Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins.
And while Walcott doesn't make my heavyweight top ten list, he probably would squeeze into the top 20, and that ain't to bad.

Great post and kudos on your research!

Poet

jersey joe is the man. he had a style and unfortunately was too ahead of his time to get the credit he deserved. boxers like toney and b-hop who have studied tapes have learned a lot from jersey joe! he beat joe louis that first time, no doubt!

Great post and kudos on your research!

Poet

Thank you sir. I appreciate that!

Was the first one as boring as the second? If not then I should watch it huh?

Walcott was cute, slick, crafty, full of tricks and could punch. Walcott didn't copy moves, he invented them. He was eccentric tecnician.

Like most fighters from around that time, Jersey Joe Walcott wasn't his real name. His real name was Arnold Raymond Cream. But he took the name Joe Walcott, after the legendary Welterweight. He was hoping the name change would gain him some much needed attention, it didn't.

Walcott was a family man. Growing up he was one of 12 sibilings. He ramained close to them all growing up, mainly his six sisters.

Walcott had a wife called Lydia and six children who in 1953 aged from seven to ninteen. Walcott was a devoted family man and religious man.

It made for a nice story Walcott being a family and religious man, and the pressed jumped all over it. Do Walcott was somehwhat ambivalent about making his religious beliefs a public matter. ''People will think I go to church for publicity''

He once instructed IBC publicist Harry Mendel ''Don't put it in the paper'' ''Write up the workout instead''

Virtually all thought Walcott was much older than he was. The first time he met Marciano he claimed to be 38 years of age. Most didn't belive him. Some maintained, he was at least forty, and even as old as 42 or 44 years of age.

Most of the press at the time made joked about Joe's age.

But nothing was easy for Walcott in his Boxing career. In the early part of his career no one paid attention to him, even with the name change. He often fought for small purses at short notice.

But in 1930's Walcott came close to getting his break on several occasions.

One being the year 1934. Walcott was working in Philadelphia under the guidance of trainer Jackie Blackburn. When Blackburn decided to move to Chicago to train a young Heavyweight called Joe Louis, he offered to take Walcott with him to train Louis.

But Walcott came down with a case of typhoid fever and had to decline the chance. Two years later, when Louis was fighting in big fights and earning huge purses, Walcott was still in the same position he had been in the previous two years.

Blackburn then remembered his former pupil and called him up to spar Louis. In the sparring session Walcott licked Louis. In one of the sessions he knocked Louis down and was let go from the camp.

Walcott continued to fight for buttons and get no attention. Like most black fighters of that time fighters, Walcott had difficulty getting financial backing from managers and promoters for being to good for there own good and due to the colour of there skin.

This ment they rarley if ever fought in big money fights or title fights. Due to the lack of financial resources, this ment not only cound't Walcott get big money fights, he was struggiling to feed his family.

Due to this he had to work many jobs as well as his boxing career.

Walcott later claimed he was literally hungry for more than a decade. ''I had the ability to succeed in the ring, but you can't do it with a gnawing at the pit of your stomach''

Most of Walcott's losses were down to lack of food and taking the bouts at short notice. In 1940 after getting knocked out by giant Heavyweight Abe Simon he retired, he had retired a few times in his career out of frustration, but this time he was serious.

In the next five years Walcott fought few to none bouts, and mainly focused on his day jobs.

But this would all change. After meeting Felix Bocchicchio, Walcott decided to return to the ring full time under the management of Bocchicchio.Who helped Walcott with small loans.

By late 1946 and 1947 Walcott was near the big time. He had been mixing it up and beating the likes of Joey Maxim and feared puncher Elmer Ray. In that time had also defeated the great Jimmy Bivins.

Bivins at that time was on the best form of his career and was on a incredible streak without a loss. Wins included Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, and Oakland Billy Smith. Walcott took it on a razor thin decision.

He then was matched up with Joe Louis. Few give Walcott a chance going into the fight that he could defeat the great Joe Louis.

But he nearly did. Most of the ringside observers and boxing fans today think Walcott put on one of the best displays of his life, but was robbed out of a decision victory.

He would lose the rematch to Louis in 1948, getting stopped in 10. But Walcott didn't stop there. Walcott fought then Heavyweight Champion Ezzard Charles for the HW Title.

He would lose the first two attempts, but would carry on to get a shot at the title due to his solid performances and the fact that there weren't much else around at that time in the Heavyweight division.

Then on July 1951 Jersey Joe realized his dream. He knocked out Charles in 7 rounds with a picture perfect punch. Jersey Joe was Heavyweight Champiom of the world. He was a true Cinderella Man story.

It didn't last long, after defending the Title against Charles, Walcott was then matched up with the unbeaten Rocky Marciano. The fight took place at Municipal Stadium, Philadelphia 1952.

And in of the boxing best remembered bouts, Walcott was knocked out in the 13th round, when leading on the scorecards and having already dropped Marciano in the 1st round.

He was then stopped in a rematch by Marciano, when he failed to meet the count of 10 made by the ref in the 1st round. This would be his last fight.

I would like a movie done on Walcott. He come through so much and all the odds seemed to be against him. But he managed to prevail, and proved sometimes good guys do finish first.....;)

Jersey Joe was never knocked out by second rate comp and fought many all time greats. Among the fighters he beat were such fighters as Elmer "violent" Ray, multiple times. Joey Maxim, multiple times. Harold Johnson. Ezzard Charles and Jimmy Bivins.
And while Walcott doesn't make my heavyweight top ten list, he probably would squeeze into the top 20, and that ain't to bad.

And also beat JOE BAKSI! Shoddy research Jabs :) I believe it was the Baksi win against the odds that re launched Walcott so to speak.



In the next five years Walcott fought just three bouts, and mainly focused on his day jobs.

But this would all change. After meeting Felix Bocchicchio, Walcott decided to return to the ring full time under the management of Bocchicchio.Who helped Walcott with small loans

The story is that Walcott pointed to his coal store and said to Bocchicchio if you can fill that I'll sign

Wondeful fighter his career kind of followed the Archie Moore pattern of picking up his losses learning and by the time he got to the big time was a canny pro. A lot of fighters today could learn from them. Thing I always associate Walcott with is wonderful footwork, as good as any i've seen in a HW. Truly terrible as a refereee as most ex fighters are. Whiff of corruption when he was an administrator in boxing after retirement (New Jersey?) and Bocchiccio was well mobbed up apparently although that didn't seem to have much bearing on Walcott's career.

Nice post Jabs and JFB

I've read that he lost the Ettore fight on body blows and the Abe Simon fight basically on exhaustion. He didn't have much training at all until in his 30's.

Felix Bocchicchio, the man who is credited with saving the career of Walcott, was also quite a character to say the least. Walcott once called him my angel. He was anything but.......

In his past Bocchicchio had served time in jail, he like to gamble, and reportedly had ties with the Mob, some sources even indicate that there were even suspicion of murder, jailbreak, and larceny.

But him and Walcott were as close as brothers. ''We've been so close, that I'll do most anything for Joe and he'll do most anything for me''

Bocchicchio would say years later ''Joe and I are more than just manager and fighter''

Pictures of the two.......Bocchicchio is the one in the middle on the first picture.
http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/CamdenSports/Boxing/WalcottBocchicchioGabeMenen.jpg

http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/camdensports/boxing/Walcott-Fratto-Felix.jpg

Felix Bocchicchio, the man who is credited with saving the career of Walcott, was also quite a character to say the least. Walcott once called him my angel. He was anything but.......

In his past Bocchicchio had served time in jail, he like to gamble, and reportedly had ties with the Mob, some sources even indicate that there were even suspicion of murder, jailbreak, and larceny.

But him and Walcott were as close as brothers. ''We've been so close, that I'll do most anything for Joe and he'll do most anything for me''

Bocchicchio would say years later ''Joe and I are more than just manager and fighter''

Pictures of the two.......Bocchicchio is the one in the middle on the first picture.
http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/CamdenSports/Boxing/WalcottBocchicchioGabeMenen.jpg

http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/camdensports/boxing/Walcott-Fratto-Felix.jpg
And I believe the name of a character in The Godfather, not sure if that was a nod from Mario Puzo.
My trivia fact for the day

My other trivia fact re Walcott is he beat Harold Johnson and his father Phil years before can't be too many who have beaten father any son

Walcott was cute, slick, crafty, full of tricks and could punch. Walcott didn't copy moves, he invented them. He was eccentric tecnician.

Like most fighters from around that time, Jersey Joe Walcott wasn't his real name. His real name was Arnold Raymond Cream. But he took the name Joe Walcott, after the legendary Welterweight. He was hoping the name change would gain him some much needed attention, it didn't.

Walcott was a family man. Growing up he was one of 12 sibilings. He ramained close to them all growing up, mainly his six sisters.

Walcott had a wife called Lydia and six children who in 1953 aged from seven to ninteen. Walcott was a devoted family man and religious man.

It made for a nice story Walcott being a family and religious man, and the pressed jumped all over it. Do Walcott was somehwhat ambivalent about making his religious beliefs a public matter. ''People will think I go to church for publicity''

He once instructed IBC publicist Harry Mendel ''Don't put it in the paper'' ''Write up the workout instead''

Virtually all thought Walcott was much older than he was. The first time he met Marciano he claimed to be 38 years of age. Most didn't belive him. Some maintained, he was at least forty, and even as old as 42 or 44 years of age.

Most of the press at the time made joked about Joe's age.

But nothing was easy for Walcott in his Boxing career. In the early part of his career no one paid attention to him, even with the name change. He often fought for small purses at short notice.

But in 1930's Walcott came close to getting his break on several occasions.

One being the year 1934. Walcott was working in Philadelphia under the guidance of trainer Jackie Blackburn. When Blackburn decided to move to Chicago to train a young Heavyweight called Joe Louis, he offered to take Walcott with him to train Louis.

But Walcott came down with a case of typhoid fever and had to decline the chance. Two years later, when Louis was fighting in big fights and earning huge purses, Walcott was still in the same position he had been in the previous two years.

Blackburn then remembered his former pupil and called him up to spar Louis. In the sparring session Walcott licked Louis. In one of the sessions he knocked Louis down and was let go from the camp.

Walcott continued to fight for buttons and get no attention. Like most black fighters of that time fighters, Walcott had difficulty getting financial backing from managers and promoters for being to good for there own good and due to the colour of there skin.

This ment they rarley if ever fought in big money fights or title fights. Due to the lack of financial resources, this ment not only cound't Walcott get big money fights, he was struggiling to feed his family.

Due to this he had to work many jobs as well as his boxing career.

Walcott later claimed he was literally hungry for more than a decade. ''I had the ability to succeed in the ring, but you can't do it with a gnawing at the pit of your stomach''

Most of Walcott's losses were down to lack of food and taking the bouts at short notice. In 1940 after getting knocked out by giant Heavyweight Abe Simon he retired, he had retired a few times in his career out of frustration, but this time he was serious.

In the next five years Walcott fought few to none bouts, and mainly focused on his day jobs.

But this would all change. After meeting Felix Bocchicchio, Walcott decided to return to the ring full time under the management of Bocchicchio.Who helped Walcott with small loans.

By late 1946 and 1947 Walcott was near the big time. He had been mixing it up and beating the likes of Joey Maxim and feared puncher Elmer Ray. In that time had also defeated the great Jimmy Bivins.

Bivins at that time was on the best form of his career and was on a incredible streak without a loss. Wins included Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, and Oakland Billy Smith. Walcott took it on a razor thin decision.

He then was matched up with Joe Louis. Few give Walcott a chance going into the fight that he could defeat the great Joe Louis.

But he nearly did. Most of the ringside observers and boxing fans today think Walcott put on one of the best displays of his life, but was robbed out of a decision victory.

He would lose the rematch to Louis in 1948, getting stopped in 10. But Walcott didn't stop there. Walcott fought then Heavyweight Champion Ezzard Charles for the HW Title.

He would lose the first two attempts, but would carry on to get a shot at the title due to his solid performances and the fact that there weren't much else around at that time in the Heavyweight division.

Then on July 1951 Jersey Joe realized his dream. He knocked out Charles in 7 rounds with a picture perfect punch. Jersey Joe was Heavyweight Champiom of the world. He was a true Cinderella Man story.

It didn't last long, after defending the Title against Charles, Walcott was then matched up with the unbeaten Rocky Marciano. The fight took place at Municipal Stadium, Philadelphia 1952.

And in of the boxing best remembered bouts, Walcott was knocked out in the 13th round, when leading on the scorecards and having already dropped Marciano in the 1st round.

He was then stopped in a rematch by Marciano, when he failed to meet the count of 10 made by the ref in the 1st round. This would be his last fight.

I would like a movie done on Walcott. He come through so much and all the odds seemed to be against him. But he managed to prevail, and proved sometimes good guys do finish first.....;)

top post man:boxing:

This is a great thread, Jersey Joe was a ATG IMO

Felix Bocchicchio, the man who is credited with saving the career of Walcott, was also quite a character to say the least. Walcott once called him my angel. He was anything but.......

In his past Bocchicchio had served time in jail, he like to gamble, and reportedly had ties with the Mob, some sources even indicate that there were even suspicion of murder, jailbreak, and larceny.

But him and Walcott were as close as brothers. ''We've been so close, that I'll do most anything for Joe and he'll do most anything for me''

Bocchicchio would say years later ''Joe and I are more than just manager and fighter''

Pictures of the two.......Bocchicchio is the one in the middle on the first picture.
http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/CamdenSports/Boxing/WalcottBocchicchioGabeMenen.jpg

http://www.dvrbs.com/PEOPLE/camdensports/boxing/Walcott-Fratto-Felix.jpg

Great info. Thank you.

Any opinions or comments?

Great bit and timeline on Jersey Joe JAB5239!

Jersey Walcott was a great talent and a great fighter. One of my all time favourites.

I see a very strong arugment for him being a Top 20 ATG HW and I haven't done a top 20 in a while but I'm sure Walcott would feature in there.

I don't need to repeat what he did, you have all done a great job in doing so. But to repeat, he was throwback fighter, fight anybody, be competitive with some of the all time greats. And has some very very good wins too as been mentioned.

People only ever look at the beautiful KO punch Rocky dished out to knock him out, but in recent years people tend to forget what happened before that. Walcott was genuinely making Rocky look silly at times, which is a great feat.

Walcott was a great fighter who sadly seems to be getting forgotten in recent years.

Awesome ass thread. Learned alot right here. That man was a pioneer for that crazy style he had. I'm shocked the only time we here him is when people want to call out Rocky, Louis, or Charles great wins yet they won't give the man individual credit. Easily one of my one of my favorite heavyweights to watch.

Walcott was a little before my time, but he was still talked about quite regularly when I was growing up, & remained in the spotlight as a referee as well. He had a way of transcending the colour issue with a lot of people. Whites, blacks, they were fans of Walcott's, & you could never hear about how well-received Walcott was without simultaneously hearing a bad word about his old rival, Charles. I just have never understood the widespread disdain for Charles, though.

Walcott was a little before my time, but he was still talked about quite regularly when I was growing up, & remained in the spotlight as a referee as well. He had a way of transcending the colour issue with a lot of people. Whites, blacks, they were fans of Walcott's, & you could never hear about how well-received Walcott was without simultaneously hearing a bad word about his old rival, Charles. I just have never understood the widespread disdain for Charles, though.

Well we know for sure that Walcott was a better fighter than a referee. He deserves a lot of blame for the Ali-Liston II travesty.

On a positive note he was fun to watch act in a major part in "The Harder They Fall"

I always liked this thread and learned a lot more than what I myself posted. Here's a bump looking for new opinions and comments, also hoping others will take some knowledge away with them after seeing it.

I think Jersey Joe's skills get overrated by a certain type of boxing fan. What Jersey tends to excel at are the things that we as hardcore boxing fans tend to thrill to. I don't think he was as flat-out skilled as Ezzard Charles was and I think Charles proved that in cleanly out-boxing him twice.

Walcott was absolutely the man in certain areas though. He could put just about anybody on their ass with his disguised punching and traps...he wasn't quite as accomplished as Moore in this department, i'd argue, but he was definitely a beast. In terms of positioning he lacked though, in my opinion. Interesting reasons for this. He spent so much time one step ahead of the opposition that he wasn't in position to punch as often as he should be. This is what cost him in the first fight with Louis. For all that he looked Louis's superior in that fight, Walcott was outlanded, or at least he was according to Ring and The New York Times. In other words, he made Louis look dumb but he spent so much resource on doing so he didn't punch enough.

Walcott's fight aggressively on the retreat strategy echoed Conn's fabulous effort pre-war. But he just wasn't as aggressive - he showed certain tactical and technical weaknesses that limited him IMO.

I also disagree that Walcott was - flat out anyway - robbed in the first fight with Louis.

Walcott is great to watch, just yesterday I watched a bunch of Hopkins fights and in two of the post fight interviews he mentions Jersey Joe Walcott, and how he aims to be the modern day version. One was the Pavlik fight.

Very crafty, excellent on his feet for his age. He was a very well rounded fighter.

As you guys have already pointed out he had his fair share of losses. However his wins more than cancel that out:

The thing I find most surprising about Walcott is he fought everyone, and when they were good as well. Not many people were coming off losses when Walcott fought them.

He defeated Jimmy Bivins, who had not lost in 21 fights. In that 21 fight streak he had beaten Moore, Charles, Maxim and Lloyd Marshall.

The Elmer Ray he defeated hadn't lost in a good while either holding wins over Lee Savold and JJW himself. After Walcott defeated him you had him take a SD over Ezzard Charles.

We will call the Joe Louis a fight for all intensive purposes, I still haven't seen a full version of that fight only a chopped one so I can't comment on the actual decision so I'll take everyone else's word for it. Joe Louis had made what 23 defences going into this fight? Had been king of the HW division for a decade. Only to be outsmarted and outmanoeuvred by what seemed to be a quicker and more savvy Walcott. Who repeatedly lured Louis' into traps, the knockdowns are a thing of beauty.

The Harold Johnson bout take as you want to, here's an article I found:
http://i43.tinypic.com/zt7lf4.png

He then goes on to win the HW title from Charles in one of the most crushing left-hookercuts ever caught on film. Then defends the title once against Charles again before losing the title and subsequent rematch to Marciano. After the Walcott fights things started to go downhill for Charles, and this is where he picks up most of his losses.

Amongst these wins which I think are notable there is other fighters he defeated:
Maxim (Will become LHW Champ)
Lee Oma (Will become HW title challenger)

There is also an abundance of other fighters he fought that were decent and experienced, it would take a while to go through them all though.

Great, Great post my man! thank you for the bump for us newbies. Jersey Joe is one of my all time favs. Thank you for this great stuff. Now how about doing one for my fav old-school puncher Elmer "Violent" Ray

I also disagree that Walcott was - flat out anyway - robbed in the first fight with Louis.

I'm a big Louis fan. He the greatest heavyweight ever in my opinion. That said, I firmly believe he lost the first Walcott fight, and decisively.

Great, Great post my man! thank you for the bump for us newbies. Jersey Joe is one of my all time favs. Thank you for this great stuff. Now how about doing one for my fav old-school puncher Elmer "Violent" Ray



a great puncher with a great nickname

I'm a big Louis fan. He the greatest heavyweight ever in my opinion. That said, I firmly believe he lost the first Walcott fight, and decisively.

Let's have a look then.

Of the polled ringside reporters 2/3 thought Walcott deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

2/3 judges thought that Louis deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

Both The New York Times and Ring Magazine report that Louis landed the more punches of the two. The New York Times and Ring Magazine both scored for Louis. Neither was counted in the ringside poll.

Louis was unquestionably the more aggressive of the two. Aggression was prized as highly then as it is now.

I have extended highlights of the fight. This fights can not be scored in favour of one fighter or another (as a general rule).


So, to summarise, around 40% of qualified ringsiders disagreed that Walcott won the fight. This included four of the five most "recognised" sources in the building, two judges, Ring, The NY Times. Compare this with the 0% that thought Sharkey beat Schmeling, or the 90% that thought Valuev beat Holyfield (your read that right). Those are the type of figures that lead to retrospective decisions regarding definite attitudes to fights for which we have only highlights...highlights which do not show a domination for either man. They do show, in tandem with ring reports, that Louis landed more punchers and was the aggressor.

There is to much evidence to the contrary to rank this a stuck-on robbery. If it was such a clear win for Walcott, how can two judges, The Ring, The New York Times and many others find a card for Louis? Why don't the highlights, the best bits of a fight, show a Walcott domination?

I don't buy conspiracies, as a rule.

Louis had slipped badly. People were shocked by what they had seen. The Champion underperformed and the challenger overperformed. Changes in the rules aided and abetted a legend. KD's were not scored a point in the era and are now. The crowd's displeasure stoked the fire.

Sharkey-Schmeling was a robbery. Louis-Walcott was a close fight where a great champion underperformed. That's how I see it.

Great, Great post my man! thank you for the bump for us newbies. Jersey Joe is one of my all time favs. Thank you for this great stuff. Now how about doing one for my fav old-school puncher Elmer "Violent" Ray

I'll try and put something together on Ray this week some time. Did you know Charley Burley layer him out cold in sparring? Seems Elmer was trying to embarrass the much smaller Burley in a sparring session when Charley exploded on him and flattened him. Not a flattering story about him, but I always found it interesting.

Bizarrely enough there is a similar story concerning Jersey Joe Walcott. I don't think it happened. However, it is a matter of record that Burley was a sparring partner for Walcott and was dismissed early from camp for reasons unknown.

Burley took sparring very very seriously. Mofo was crazy.




Supposedly Burley even waited for Ray to come round. "Don't mess with me." Cost him a manager.

Let's have a look then.

Of the polled ringside reporters 2/3 thought Walcott deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

2/3 judges thought that Louis deserved the nod. 1/3 disagreed.

Both The New York Times and Ring Magazine report that Louis landed the more punches of the two. The New York Times and Ring Magazine both scored for Louis. Neither was counted in the ringside poll.

Louis was unquestionably the more aggressive of the two. Aggression was prized as highly then as it is now.

I have extended highlights of the fight. These fights can not be scored in favour of one fighter or another (as a general rule).


So, to summarise, around 40% of qualified ringsiders disagreed that Walcott won the fight. This included four of the five most "recognised" sources in the building, two judges, Ring, The NY Times. Compare this with the 0% that thought Sharkey beat Schmeling, or the 90% that thought Valuev beat Holyfield (your read that right). Those are the type of figures that lead to retrospective decisions regarding definite attitudes to fights for which we have only highlights...highlights which do not show a domination for either man. They do show, in tandem with ring reports, that Louis landed more punchers and was the aggressor.

There is to much evidence to the contrary to rank this a stuck-on robbery. If it was such a clear win for Walcott, how can two judges, The Ring, The New York Times and many others find a card for Louis? Why don't the highlights, the best bits of a fight, show a Walcott domination?

I don't buy conspiracies, as a rule.

Louis had slipped badly. People were shocked by what they had seen. The Champion underperformed and the challenger overperformed. Changes in the rules aided and abetted a legend. KD's were not scored a point in the era and are now. The crowd's displeasure stoked the fire.

Sharkey-Schmeling was a robbery. Louis-Walcott was a close fight where a great champion underperformed. That's how I see it.

I can't change my opinion based on what I've seen. It wasn't a robbery per say, just a bad decision in my opinion. Even Louis believed he had lost and wanted (and did) to set things straight with a rematch.

Did Louis think he'd lost? What's the source on that? I have Louis saying he thought he won the fight in every post-fight interview but that he was "disgusted by his performance."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yFc7WIKuZvQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

6:15. Louis explains a bit, and Walcott gives his input.

How much credit does Walcott really get for the Johnson win though? To you guys?

Barn left nice article in one of his posts from a while back if anyone is unaware of what happened there.

How much credit does Walcott really get for the Johnson win though? To you guys?

Barn left nice article in one of his posts from a while back if anyone is unaware of what happened there.
It's a hard one, Walcott did knock Johnson down. However that is not a microism of how the fight would have went as there was no reports of Johnson being shaky in the third round when the incident happened. Shame they never rematched. I don't think he should get FULL credit. It wasn't as if Johnson quit as back injuries are a real deal and can cripple you.

As I said, not full credit but deserves some as if it went to a technical decision (even though it was only 2 rounds.) Walcott does win but the fight was too young to even argue that.

I don't know, I've just kind of argued myself in writing this. One thing is for sure he doesn't deserve full credit by any means. A win is a win though.

It's a hard one, Walcott did knock Johnson down. However that is not a microism of how the fight would have went as there was no reports of Johnson being shaky in the third round when the incident happened. Shame they never rematched. I don't think he should get FULL credit. It wasn't as if Johnson quit as back injuries are a real deal and can cripple you.

As I said, not full credit but deserves some as if it went to a technical decision (even though it was only 2 rounds.) Walcott does win but the fight was too young to even argue that.

I don't know, I've just kind of argued myself in writing this. One thing is for sure he doesn't deserve full credit by any means. A win is a win though.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

Walcott may have been winning the fight but he didn't beat him. It was 2 rounds in and was stopped due to an actual injury (Not a Klitschko style one :lol1:)

Hard to give credit for that IMO.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

Walcott may have been winning the fight but he didn't beat him. It was 2 rounds in and was stopped due to an actual injury (Not a Klitschko style one :lol1:)

Hard to give credit for that IMO.
Yeah I know, I've sparred with a minor back strain and it's not pleasing at all.

It's hard to give credit but, hard to simply deny it as well. I'm trying to think of a comparable fight in history where someone got injured so bad they literally couldn't go on. It's more problematic here as it really helps Walcott's resume if he does indeed win this one outright.

Yeah I know, I've sparred with a minor back strain and it's not pleasing at all.

It's hard to give credit but, hard to simply deny it as well. I'm trying to think of a comparable fight in history where someone got injured so bad they literally couldn't go on. It's more problematic here as it really helps Walcott's resume if he does indeed win this one outright.

Nicky Cook-Ricky Burns :lol1:

But that fight was fixed anyway. Shame I'd already put 100 quid on it! And lost it!

If I ever cross paths with Nicky Cook I'll have to restrain from punching him in that f*cking back :lol1:

Nicky Cook-Ricky Burns :lol1:

But that fight was fixed anyway. Shame I'd already put 100 quid on it! And lost it!

If I ever cross paths with Nicky Cook I'll have to restrain from punching him in that f*cking back :lol1:
I was at a friends for that fight, absolute piece of crap.

How do you not know your back is so mangled if you're sparring in training camp?

I was at a friends for that fight, absolute piece of crap.

How do you not know your back is so mangled if you're sparring in training camp?

It was fixed. Literally.

Everyone got the tip on the morning of the fight that Cook would go down in 3 or less.

They even shut down bookies in East London because of it then froze all betting on the fight across the entire UK.

Cook only took the fight to get some money. That's it.

Problem was, I'd already put £100 on it to go 6 rounds or over!!!

Because, as everyone knows, were it not fixed it would have 100% gone to Round 6.

It was fixed. Literally.

Everyone got the tip on the morning of the fight that Cook would go down in 3 or less.

They even shut down bookies in East London because of it then froze all betting on the fight across the entire UK.

Cook only took the fight to get some money. That's it.

Problem was, I'd already put £100 on it to go 6 rounds or over!!!

Because, as everyone knows, were it not fixed it would have 100% gone to Round 6.
I wasn't even aware of that.

£100 is a lot of money, I would have been ultimate pissed.

Are you in profit in your boxing bets overall? William hill had Victor Ortiz the under dog at 11-8 a week or two ago against Berto which I thought looked nice.

I wasn't even aware of that.

£100 is a lot of money, I would have been ultimate pissed.

Are you in profit in your boxing bets overall? William hill had Victor Ortiz the under dog at 11-8 a week or two ago against Berto which I thought looked nice.

Yeah, absolutely. In profit.

I wouldn't do it were I making loss's.

£100 loss was annoying but I very rarely lose. Throghout all of last year I only lost 2 or 3 times. I won all the rest. When I lose, I lose say 100 at the very max. When I win, I'm looking at 200+ at the least really. Profit. So, you do the Math :lol1:

But I don't bet often to be honest, only when I see something worth betting on or a "sure thing" (That Cook-Burns was supposed to be)

I also almost never bet on fights with the chance of robberies. The last time I did (Lara-Williams) I was robbed of a huge pay-out.

The judges almost robbed me again in the Salido-Juan Ma rematch. Thank God Salido stopped him again :lol1:

But, like I said, I really don't bet much at all really.

I saw those Ortiz-Berto odds. I'll be betting on that most likely. Ortiz will win that fight.

Yeah, absolutely. In profit.

I wouldn't do it were I making loss's.

£100 loss was annoying but I very rarely lose. Throghout all of last year I only lost 2 or 3 times. I won all the rest. When I lose, I lose say 100 at the very max. When I win, I'm looking at 200+ at the least really. Profit. So, you do the Math :lol1:

But I don't bet often to be honest, only when I see something worth betting on or a "sure thing" (That Cook-Burns was supposed to be)

I also almost never bet on fights with the chance of robberies. The last time I did (Lara-Williams) I was robbed of a huge pay-out.

The judges almost robbed me again in the Salido-Juan Ma rematch. Thank God Salido stopped him again :lol1:

But, like I said, I really don't bet much at all really.

I saw those Ortiz-Berto odds. I'll be betting on that most likely. Ortiz will win that fight.
That sounds awesome. As you say though f*ck betting on any fights by Top Rank and Co.

Did Louis think he'd lost? What's the source on that? I have Louis saying he thought he won the fight in every post-fight interview but that he was "disgusted by his performance."

While he never spoke the words, I'm of the opinion his apology to Walcott and his leaving the ring are tell tale signs he thought he lost. Fighters are proud and I've never heard one admit defeat when given a controversial decision. I think the recent Rios fight is proof of this.

While he never spoke the words, I'm of the opinion his apology to Walcott and his leaving the ring are tell tale signs he thought he lost. Fighters are proud and I've never heard one admit defeat when given a controversial decision. I think the recent Rios fight is proof of this.
Ray Leonard did against Hearns the second time I believe.

You can't blame Joe for not waiting, first time he'd done the scorecards business in a while. :lol1:

All joking aside he didn't leave the ring in the first Godoy bout so that argument is kind of invalid.

While he never spoke the words, I'm of the opinion his apology to Walcott and his leaving the ring are tell tale signs he thought he lost. Fighters are proud and I've never heard one admit defeat when given a controversial decision. I think the recent Rios fight is proof of this.

Ritchie Woodhall admitted that the decision that he won when facing Glen Cately should have gone the other way. Thats one that I most remember.

Ray Leonard has admitted that he felt that Tommy Hearns should have got the decision in their second fight.

Your right though, it doesn't happen very often!!

Sorry Barn, I didn't read your post till I'd posted mine. Good call on the Ray Leonard example!!

I'll try and put something together on Ray this week some time. Did you know Charley Burley layer him out cold in sparring? Seems Elmer was trying to embarrass the much smaller Burley in a sparring session when Charley exploded on him and flattened him. Not a flattering story about him, but I always found it interesting.
That would be great my man! My grandfather was a hard-core, old-school trial lawyer but he had the enthusiasm of a 9 year old at Christmas when he used to talk about 'The Violent One'.

Ritchie Woodhall admitted that the decision that he won when facing Glen Cately should have gone the other way. Thats one that I most remember.

Ray Leonard has admitted that he felt that Tommy Hearns should have got the decision in their second fight.

Your right though, it doesn't happen very often!!

Yeah agreed, not very often. Isn't there a rumor that Leonard also supposedly told Hagler he thought he should have won the decision after their fight in the ring? Also, in the Olympics, when Holyfield got that BS DQ loss, the guy that was given the win over him held up Holyfield's hand, knowing that Evander deserved to win that fight. The gold medal winner even invited Holyfield to stand on the winner's step next to him. Quite classy IMO.

Yeah agreed, not very often. Isn't there a rumor that Leonard also supposedly told Hagler he thought he should have won the decision after their fight in the ring? Also, in the Olympics, when Holyfield got that BS DQ loss, the guy that was given the win over him held up Holyfield's hand, knowing that Evander deserved to win that fight. The gold medal winner even invited Holyfield to stand on the winner's step next to him. Quite classy IMO.
Ray Leonard said "You're still the champ Marvin, you're still the champ." he admitted so in Legendary Nights. However I don't think it implies he thought he lost as he always stated he never wanted the belts just to beat Hagler.