Are Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer all time greats?

[Boogie Nights]

slicksouthpaw also declared the 40s and 50s as the best heavyweight eras. maybe he never heard of the 70s

he also said mike tyson ducked fighters like bowe (who was not around) mercer (who was not around), lennox lewis (who was still in the olympics LOL), foreman who was just getting ranked for a title belt when tyson was doing time.

he also considers tony galento a contender, whom any boxing historian doesnt make for ****

[slicksouthpaw16]

This is one of Prospects quotes from his thread that he made about me in the non stop boxing section. A thread in which he made with the exact same title as this one. Since he has me on ignore, i cannot post in the thread so i will bring it here. This is his discussion with Silencers.

it's not in my mind. you make joe walcott into an all time great because he has victories over arguably one great fighter in his era, and solid contenders

yet you dont make johnson into an all time great despite him beating one great fighter of this era, along with solid contenders :

You need to know this.

First of all, you are comparing Glen Johnson to Joe Walcott? Why is that? The only elite name guy that Johnson has beaten were Tarver(decent champion) and Jones(Past his prime). I also believe that Tarver wouldn't have been that dominate if he was fighting in a more talented filled division. Walcott is is on an entirely different level. He beat a nearly prime Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim and a few other hot contenders of that era. He also became the oldest heavyweight champion of that time and fought the best of that era. He even looked impressive while lossing. He was out pointing Marciano in their first fight before he was stopped and many observers believe that he beat Louis the first time. You are also completely forgetting the fact that this is at heavyweight. There is just so many things that are wrong with your views on these subjects.

You are also being biased and close minded in that thread as well. Seems like i am not the only one that is seeing this stuff. I decided against keeping you on my ignore list as this is the internet so it really doesn't matter. I still do not respect the fact that you do not respect other's opinions. When two MEN have a debate, then its best for each poster to be reasonable and hear out the other's view. You resort to childish name calling when anyone disagrees with you. I actually remember you going off on Thunder Lips in your Holyfield vs Marciano thread because he stated that he believes that Rex Layne( I think) would have beaten Tyson.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Here is another one of prospects post from his thread. This is just getting ridiculous.

rahman beating Lennox Lewis outruns everything walcott did in his entire career and then gets multiplied by a hundred

Hmmmm, in that case Rachman should be in the hall of fame shouldn't he? Well he isn't, Joe Walcott is. Walcott is the better fighter, better resume and is actally great. His wins were actually real and not flukes. Another post where you expose your pathetic logics and lack of boxing knowledge. Does anyone see how he is spewing out anything to support his arguements? He is showing a complete lack of respect for legends and seriously sounds like he is new to the sport.

You also have yet to name a great fighter that Tyson has beaten when they were in their prime. When i ask, you just sneak out of it by throwing insults are by simply not replying to the questions. Anyway, thats where Louis is way ahead of Tyson. He beat great fighters that were in their primes, Tyson didn't. Tyson also didn't fight the best of that era, Joe Louis did. Thats just another point that you fail to acknlowedge.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Sources

By the way, here is the link to his thread.
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=188184

[Silencers]

By the way, here is the link to his thread.
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=188184

He put me on his ignore list when I was away doing a few things then posted a message in the thread to say that I agreed with him.

[slicksouthpaw16]

He put me on his ignore list when I was away doing a few things then posted a message in the thread that I agreed with him.

Lol, We shouldn't take this guy too seriously. He calls you unkowledgeable, even though you were hearing his view and being as unbiased as you possibly could. Clearly he is just a fan and doesn't know what he is talking about.

well this settles it, ive clearly proved my point. you brought nothing to the discussion except for your ideal views, and the redicilous opinion that walcott is an all time great

thanks for at least agreeing with me, and finally getting it. my advice to you is to educate yourself more on the louis era, and practice the meaning of greatness.

you're not a bad poster, but you show your biase, double standards, and sometimes go overboard with your statements. however after this discussion i seriously doubt your knowledge.

[Silencers]

Lol, We shouldn't take this guy too seriously. He calls you unkowledgeable, even though you were hearing his view and being as unbiased as you possibly could. Clearly he is just a fan and doesn't know what he is talking about.

No doubt.

[Boogie Nights]

Here is another one of prospects post from his thread. This is just getting ridiculous.



Hmmmm, in that case Rachman should be in the hall of fame shouldn't he? Well he isn't, Joe Walcott is. Walcott is the better fighter, better resume and is actally great. His wins were actually real and not flukes. Another post where you expose your pathetic logics and lack of boxing knowledge. Does anyone see how he is spewing out anything to support his arguements? He is showing a complete lack of respect for legends and seriously sounds like he is new to the sport.

You also have yet to name a great fighter that Tyson has beaten when they were in their prime. When i ask, you just sneak out of it by throwing insults are by simply not replying to the questions. Anyway, thats where Louis is way ahead of Tyson. He beat great fighters that were in their primes, Tyson didn't. Tyson also didn't fight the best of that era, Joe Louis did. Thats just another point that you fail to acknlowedge.

i like how you say i put words in people's mouths when you are clearly guilty of it. whenre did i compare walcott to rahman? i said if walcott's only quality win over charles gives him an all time great status, than rahman deserves to be great too by your standards.

you still havent admitted that you were wrong abou tyson avoiding opponents that were not even there at the time. how about you spewing that bs out?

it's just redicilous how you 2 guys hype up a journeyman, who i admit is a good fighter, but to call him an all time great you guys are just out of it.

ive made the glen johnson comparisson and it fit right in. im not gonna waste time and go over it again. southpaw posted the link so check it out.

i wasnt insulting anyone until you were acusing me of pumping tyson up, disrespecting louis (which i havent done) and saying lies about tyson that dont even stick

now you think about that before you judge another poster

[Boogie Nights]

and lol at silencers who comes into threads with his one liners and thinks he's the ****. he's probably the last guy i would want an opinion from. a journeyman who's an all time great....well that's just great

enjoy the red k

[Yogi]

Geez, I love and defend the old timers as much as anybody, but if Baer & Walcott (lesser extent) are considered "all-time greats" then the honour of having that compliment giving to a fighter has lessened a ton.

To me, calling somebody an "all time great" heavyweight is one of the greatest compliments and if you ask me, should be limited to the special few that are almost slam dunk inclusions for anyone's all-time top ten divional lists and things of that nature.

I wouldn't bestow the honour on either of them, myself, although both were excellant fighters (Walcott moreso) and both accomplished wonderful things in the sport.