Tweet
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.Comment
-
I also disagree that Walcott was - flat out anyway - robbed in the first fight with Louis.Last edited by McGrain; 04-21-2012, 05:17 AM.Comment
-
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:
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.Comment
-
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" RayComment
-
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.Originally posted by McGrain View PostComment
-
-
Let's have a look then.Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
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.Last edited by McGrain; 04-21-2012, 03:27 PM.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by U_TALKING_2_ME? View PostComment
-
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.Comment
Comment