Are Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer all time greats?

[Boogie Nights]

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.

that's as fair as it can get, solid post Yogi. no one disputed that they werent good fighters, i was quick enough to credit them, and even went as far as to say that a guy like baer could have become a greater fighter than louis had he been serious in his approach to boxing. walcott was one tough bird, but to put him near the greats....it's insulting to fighters who gained that status with hard work. if it was that easy than everyone could be an all time great

to me an all time great is someone like ali (whom i consider the best of all time) or louis. and even briefly tyson

what's being great? someone who dominates the division. has an impact on the sport, carries the legacy, has a large following behind him. did baer and walcott have all that? no

they were very good fighters who made a competitive run in the division. you can take a fighter like baer (very talented but a clown) who laughs and dances around his opponents in the ring and award him with being great. it's silly. all those people that voted they either have no close association to the history, and seem to overhype the whole idea of greatness simply because it's tied to the old school 'thing'

you cant take a guy like walcott who lost to complete unknowns and call him an all time great. how's rahman, or a guy like johnson, or even leon spinks (who beat ali) different in that regard?

these guys overuse the term great without any significance. it hurts the whole tradition. if you can put a guy like baer, and walcott next to the name like ali......then you gotta ask yourself what the hell is happening to the sport. and they have enough shame to come in and defend that idea. they trying to make a strong case for it.

and i just cant believe that i got tied up in the middle of it. but it's useless. these posts wont convince them, because they are too damn stubborn and taken this thing too far and wont back down.

but it doesnt really matter to me what they think. what's on their mind has no big significance to what the whole idea of greatness represents

[Boogie Nights]

to make it even more simple ill use an example here

2 guys work on the same job

one guy works his ass off, works for his family, saves every dollar, dedicates his life to this job, he loves this job, he would die before he quit this job. he's like the best worker on that job. but he gets paid ****, and it takes longer for him to get that promotion. lets call that worker a guy like ali. he has to work hard before his boss will tell him, yep you deserved it kid, im outting you up.

then there's a worker who gets overpaid for working half time, and coming in to screw around. he doesnt care if he gets fired, he doesnt care to work hard enough because he's already got a fat check lying under his door. he does less for more. his attitude is irresponsible, his habbits show up in the poor performances. but his boss doesnt seem to notice, and still gives him the credit for his work

so those guys like walcott and baer, that did less are suppoused to get the same recognition that other guys did for longer and harder time?

slicksouthpaw started all of this, and i didnt bother to retaliate that much. im just defending my point of view. he made some false statements, and accused me for pumping something up which i didnt do in the first place. the guy has too much love and respect for a guy like louis so i can see how he could get upset over what i said. but he really blew things up, and made them into something they werent.

quite honestly i dont see why this thread was necessary

[micky_knox]

Definatly both are all time greats

[Boogie Nights]

Definatly both are all time greats

again i dont understand how you come up with that, but to each their own

[TheGreatA]

It all comes down to what you define as an 'all time great'. Is it greatness in any division, pound for pound greatness or just greatness in one division? Something else?

Had both fighters been focused for their whole careers, I believe they could've been what I define as an 'all time great' (okay, maybe not Baer...).

The influential Jersey Joe Walcott held the keys to victories over both Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano and had he defeated them (which he did not), along with his victories over Charles, Maxim, Bivins, Elmer Ray and Harold Johnson, it would've surely made him one of the greatest fighters to ever live.
Too much might be put into his amount of losses, as he was a starving man fighting for food for a long period of his career.

Max Baer was a clown and did not care to train, he was also taller, heavier, more powerful and durable (not that he was taller or heavier than Carnera but he had more power and toughness) than any other heavyweight in his time (until Joe Louis).
Baer had no business losing to Braddock, he had beaten better men, and although he would've been dethroned eventually by Louis, it would've made his short championship reign a more memorable one.

They are both deserving hall of famers.

[Boogie Nights]

It all comes down to what you define as an 'all time great'. Is it greatness in any division, pound for pound greatness or just greatness in one division? Something else?

Had both fighters been focused for their whole careers, I believe they could've been what I define as an 'all time great' (maybe not Baer).

The influential Jersey Joe Walcott held the keys to victories over both Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano and had he defeated them (which he did not), along with his victories over Charles, Maxim, Bivins, Elmer Ray and Harold Johnson, it would've surely made him one of the greatest fighters to ever live.
Too much might be put into his amount of losses, as he was a starving man fighting for food for a long period of his career.

Max Baer was a clown and did not care to train, he was also taller, heavier, more powerful and durable (not that he was taller or heavier than Carnera but he had more power and toughness) than any other heavyweight in his time (until Joe Louis).
Baer had no business losing to Braddock, he had beaten better men, and although he would've been dethroned eventually by Louis, it would've made his short championship reign a more memorable one.

i agree with this. both were good fighters, who under the the right circumstances, on their best night would surely have brought something magical into the ring. ive always said had baer put his lazy mind to use, with his natural talent, size, and that damn power he could have been the greatest of that era. im telling you, im not putting too much stock in him, or over hyping him, but i cant help but admire how powerful he could be when he wanted to. instead he didnt even achive a 'great' status, further removed from 'an all time great'. he had one the greatest right hands, his fists were lethal weapons. not to mention he had a strong support system behind him, Dempsey. he had the foundation.

walcott was damn good too. when i listed him as part of joe's wins, i said right away, good opponent. he had a similar background like dempsey, boh fought for meal stubs. the difference between them, is dempsey got further because he had a good management behind him. walcott was just the only man standing. he had good wins, but again he lost to the 2 greatest fighters of that era, twice each. he didnt go down easy, but still got an empty spot

i've already described what i qualify as greatness. neither man deserves that status by my standards. the purpose of this thread was for southpaw to try to make me into an idiot. he may have his opinions, and it's all right. but i dont just easily throw out an all time great as if it's nothing. it has to be earned.

P.S They are both deserving hall of famers, absoloutely no dispute or complaints about that on my part. and very very good wins for louis

[Boogie Nights]

Anybody who does not consider Jersey Joe Walcott to be an all time great has a poor understanding of boxing history.

what has he done Tunney to deserve such high praise that fighters like ali, foreman, and others have? he lost to 2 greatest fighters of that era. ive already gone through this in my previous posts. i dont agree with that assesment

[StarshipTrooper]

LMAO, he's getting owned by his own poll again

Poet

[sleazyfellow]

wait a minute, just because a fighter lost to ppl who became nothing in boxing, does this mean they are not qualified for ATG status? Well thats pretty ******... Heres a record I'll throw at you

Won 194*
Lost 26*
Draw 8*

The guy lost 26 times! Some to ATG and some to complete nobodies...if he was great the loses would be less than 10 at least! Of course that win/loss record is archie moore's, whos considered one of the best. Im pretty sure prospect will go off and say "he fought in da weakest division!, he almost got knocked out by a nobody, yvonne durell".

Ok back on topic, I agree with jersey joe being an ATG, he had a diffrent style for that time and had some great matches, but max baer was a one trick pony to me...just the right hand, take that away and thats it.

[Boogie Nights]

wait a minute, just because a fighter lost to ppl who became nothing in boxing, does this mean they are not qualified for ATG status? Well thats pretty ******... Heres a record I'll throw at you

Won 194*
Lost 26*
Draw 8*

The guy lost 26 times! Some to ATG and some to complete nobodies...if he was great the loses would be less than 10 at least! Of course that win/loss record is archie moore's, whos considered one of the best. Im pretty sure prospect will go off and say "he fought in da weakest division!, he almost got knocked out by a nobody, yvonne durell".

Ok back on topic, I agree with jersey joe being an ATG, he had a diffrent style for that time and had some great matches, but max baer was a one trick pony to me...just the right hand, take that away and thats it.

wow arent you a cheap shot, no need to put words in my mouth or tell me what i think, you should worry about your own opinion

just for the record i consider archie moore an all time great. not a great but an all time great, as in great in any era. he beat more quality guys than walcott did, and he fought with an injury all his career. and i dont consider yvon durell a nobody, he was one tough fighter who fought a very determined fight against moore. archie was just too good, took his beating and came back showing the heart of the champ that he is. i rank archie very high on my list. but thank you very much for telling me what i think.

walcott was a good fighter, didnt you hear me give him credit even before all of this bull**** started? just in case you think im doing it as a cover up.. i tell it like i see it.

read my other posts on greatness before coming on here and criticising me. greatness is something ali had, greatness is having impact on the sport, being the boss of your division, leaving a strong legacy, having the credentials to back up the naysayers? did walcott have that? no, he didnt. he lost to the 2 premier fighters of that era. they were the all time greats. he was a journeyman who showed up and gained respect for being a hard nosed fighter who went against the odds and had some memorable moments. he was a sure hall of famer, but he wasnt an all time great

before laying down on me, and making me into the piece of **** that you think i am, at least read my posts for ****s sakes