Are Jersey Joe Walcott and Max Baer all time greats?

[BKM-]

Walcott is, Max Baer isn't.

[Jim Jeffries]

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

Damn, you've outdone yourself with that one. I don't care who ya are, that's sigworthy right thar.

BTW, Walcott did beat and KO the guy who completely owned Archie Moore, and he was robbed against Joe Louis in the first fight. And he was beating Rocky Marciano pretty handedly for 13 rounds.

[Boogie Nights]

Damn, you've outdone yourself with that one. I don't care who ya are, that's sigworthy right thar.

BTW, Walcott did beat and KO the guy who completely owned Archie Moore, and he was robbed against Joe Louis in the first fight. And he was beating Rocky Marciano pretty handedly for 13 rounds.

you want to tell me he wasnt a journeyman? please leave you romance of the 40s and 50s behind

he may well have been robbed against louis but he didnt get the nod 'officialy'that's not the same as winning.he was boxing marciano's ears off but it doesnt erase what happened in the 13th round, or in the rematch. thomas hearns was also leading on the cards against leonard but we all know the outcome. coulda, shoulda, woulda but didnt.

[slicksouthpaw16]

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.

Thats how you are comparing Walcott to Rachman. Then you compared Glen Johnson to Joe Walcott. Holyfield has loss 9 times. According to you, he is a journeyman. Why? Becuase most of his losses didn't come to the upper echlon of the heavyweight division. That goes to show you that the circumstances has a lot with the outcome of these fights. Holyfield dealt with health problems that were effecting his performances. After the Moorer fight, the doctors determined the he was literally having a heart attack in the ring. The fights that he had against moorer, Toney, Donald, Byrd and Ruiz. Do you believe that any of these fighters would have beaten Evander at 100? No they wouldn't. Does Evander lossing to these fighters means that he is not an all time great?

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.

I wasn't wrong about anything. If the best fighters are around in the same era that you are and they are willing to fight(and the fight doesn't happen) then there is something wrong there. Mercer was around, Witherspoon was around, Bowe was around, Morrison was around, Lewis was around and so was Holyfield. I also don't know where you get the indication that Bowe was not around when Tyson was. Bowe fought consistantly from 1989 through 1996 and was matched against tough competition. very fast. Tyson's people only put him against fighters that they know that he could beat. The only fighters was i was impressed and that i give Tyson his credit for was his wins over Bruno(who later gave Lewis fits) and had only 2 losses at the time and Andrew Golota, despite him being insane. What other fighter did he face that was a serious threat and had the look of credentials? Ruddock was a good fighter, however was not a major player in the division. James Smith had 19 wins and 5 losses at the time that he fought Tyson and had been stopped by a fadded Larry Holmes. Does he seem like he was any real threat? or was that careful match making on the part of Tyson's management? Look at the fighters that pushed Tyson. Jose Rabalita, James tillis, Buster Douglas ect. He has not looked imressive. Rabalita was not a major player in the division, however there were times that he made Tyson go passive. James Tillis made Tyson go passive and Douglas dominated Tyson and knocked him out. All of these fighters fought Tyson back. Imagine the kind of challenges that a young Ray mercer would have presented to Tyson? A young Riddock Bowe or a prime Holyfield, prime Lewis ect. Fighters that actually had the look of crendentials and brings something to the table. Don Kings hyped Tyson's ealier fights up to be something that they weren't.

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.

Um no. You called me an idiot and said that i was making things up when i stated that Tyson's management avoided the best competition, which he did. It wasn't until you said that is when i started to get on your case. I am not judging any poster. Many people can tell you that i am very fair and reasonable, even when i don't agree with what they are saying.

[Boogie Nights]

Thats how you are comparing Walcott to Rachman. Then you compared Glen Johnson to Joe Walcott. Holyfield has loss 9 times. According to you, he is a journeyman. Why? Becuase most of his losses didn't come to the upper echlon of the heavyweight division. That goes to show you that the circumstances has a lot with the outcome of these fights. Holyfield dealt with health problems that were effecting his performances. After the Moorer fight, the doctors determined the he was literally having a heart attack in the ring. The fights that he had against moorer, Toney, Donald, Byrd and Ruiz. Do you believe that any of these fighters would have beaten Evander at 100? No they wouldn't. Does Evander lossing to these fighters means that he is not an all time great?



I wasn't wrong about anything. If the best fighters are around in the same era that you are and they are willing to fight(and the fight doesn't happen) then there is something wrong there. Mercer was around, Witherspoon was around, Bowe was around, Morrison was around, Lewis was around and so was Holyfield. I also don't know where you get the indication that Bowe was not around when Tyson was. Bowe fought consistantly from 1989 through 1996 and was matched against tough competition. very fast. Tyson's people only put him against fighters that they know that he could beat. The only fighters was i was impressed and that i give Tyson his credit for was his wins over Bruno(who later gave Lewis fits) and had only 2 losses at the time and Andrew Golota, despite him being insane. What other fighter did he face that was a serious threat and had the look of credentials? Ruddock was a good fighter, however was not a major player in the division. James Smith had 19 wins and 5 losses at the time that he fought Tyson and had been stopped by a fadded Larry Holmes. Does he seem like he was any real threat? or was that careful match making on the part of Tyson's management? Look at the fighters that pushed Tyson. Jose Rabalita, James tillis, Buster Douglas ect. He has not looked imressive. Rabalita was not a major player in the division, however there were times that he made Tyson go passive. James Tillis made Tyson go passive and Douglas dominated Tyson and knocked him out. All of these fighters fought Tyson back. Imagine the kind of challenges that a young Ray mercer would have presented to Tyson? A young Riddock Bowe or a prime Holyfield, prime Lewis ect. Fighters that actually had the look of crendentials and brings something to the table. Don Kings hyped Tyson's ealier fights up to be something that they weren't.



Um no. You called me an idiot and said that i was making things up when i stated that Tyson's management avoided the best competition, which he did. It wasn't until you said that is when i started to get on your case. I am not judging any poster. Many people can tell you that i am very fair and reasonable, even when i don't agree with what they are saying.

fair enough, but you're are continuing to assume that im saying something i didnt say. where did i say holyfield was a journeyman?are you trying to flame me? i place holyfield in top 15 or maybe even at 10 of greatest heavyweights of all time. the difference between his losses and those of walcotts is that most of holy's losses came later in his career, whereas a guy like walcott would win some and loose some. holyfield fought and lost to much tougher guys than walcott did earlier in his career. please dont make up lies about me, and use quotes next time or provide links. i never said holyfileld was a journeyman, in fact i never brought holyfield into conversation even once now that i explained to you the pattern of losses between these 2 fighters you should be able to deffirentiate between the 2. holyfield's resume is amazing, walcott's resume is less than that and he lost to premier fighters of that era. beating ezzard charles twice (who's best weigth was at light heavyweight to begin with) does not get you an all time great status. i already explained how i define greatness. i cant put walcott's name next to someone like ali, or robinson, armstrong, holmes, lewis, foreman, among many others. you seriously think that walcott belongs next to those names?

as for tyson's opposition he may have took it soft after prison but you cant accuse him of that before he went away, and you cant make a claim for him avoiding other fighters. here's what i wrote in case you missed it

when tyson was an undisputed champion Lennox was still fighting for his gold medal. Lewis made his pro debut in 1989, the same year rid**** bowe turned pro

tyson was already in jail when bowe entered the rankings, and 4 years after his release rid**** was already done as a fighter. in 1995 he was already at decline (same year tyson came back) came in overweight for the third holyfield fight and retired after the golota fights. mike was never around for either a prime bowe or a past it bowe, i dont know how else i can get that throught to you
foreman was fighting for moorer's title won from holyfield when mike was still doing his time. how is that ducking?

as for ray mercer he came along in 1989 as well after scoring the medal in olympics. he got his shot at then WBO champion Tommy Morrison in 1991, when tyson was out. after the lennox lewis fight, eventhough he lost, he declared that he wanted to fight tyson, now ive never heard any rumour about the fight being materialized. tyson fought holyfield twice in that period and after the second fight was suspended for 2 years.

seriously man, ive spent a lot of time on you to show you that your facts were inaccurate (i wont call them lies) but even when im wrong i admit im wrong. after looking at what i wrote cant you at least be man enough to admit that some of the things you said were inccorect? is that so hard?

[Steak]

I dont really think they were. It really depends what you consider an ATG, but I personally dont throw around the phrase often.

All due respect to Baer and especially Walcott, but I can think of more than a few heavyweights that would have beaten them and/or are more accomplished than them. I feel especially bad saying that about Walcott, because the way he fought had a lot of influence on fighters after him...but honestly, there are a lot of better fighters of him throughout history.

its not really a shame though...being an ATG is pretty rare in my book.

[Boogie Nights]

I dont really think they were. It really depends what you consider an ATG, but I personally dont throw around the phrase often.

All due respect to Baer and especially Walcott, but I can think of more than a few heavyweights that would have beaten them and/or are more accomplished than them. I feel especially bad saying that about Walcott, because the way he fought had a lot of influence on fighters after him...but honestly, there are a lot of better fighters of him throughout history.

its not really a shame though...being an ATG is pretty rare in my book.

exactly, greatness takes more than a couple of quality wins to achive. wlacott and baer were champions briefly, they did not dominate the division, although they did have an impact on it, and they lost to other great names of their era

i dont really know what southpaw was trying to prove, i already knew that they would get the most votes. if he thinks im surprised about that, he's wrong. i knew what the poll results were going to be ahead of time

most users that have voted, im qute sure, have not even see walcott and baer, or if they did, they were youtube clips. im not gonna brag here about my knowledge or claim to be a know it all, but i've created several writing logs about those fighters, i collected old footage films, ive learned about their records, the dates on which they fought, the activity gap etc.

if southpaw thinks he proved something with this poll he better look elsewhere. im not ignorant but im confident enough to say that when it comes to the subject of past time greats, i know a **** ton more than any of voters on that poll, who voted just for the sake of voting. this poll doesnt dictate what i know.

im glad that a few rational posters appeared in this thread to provide explanations instead of idiotic one liners like 'yeah dude, of course they are, anyone who dont think so is an idiot and knows nothing about this sport' that's pathetic, they talk but if i were to put them on the spot they wouldnt know the answer to a simple question

i pretty much done arguing my point here. if those people think that for some crazy reason guys like walcott and baer (who were pretty damn good fighters, and HOFs) are all time greats, then i need to take my business elsewhere, convincing people of the truth is something pointless here.

[slicksouthpaw16]

exactly, greatness takes more than a couple of quality wins to achive. wlacott and baer were champions briefly, they did not dominate the division, although they did have an impact on it, and they lost to other great names of their era

The fought the best of their era and beat great names. This debate is like walking through a maze.

i dont really know what southpaw was trying to prove, i already knew that they would get the most votes. if he thinks im surprised about that, he's wrong. i knew what the poll results were going to be ahead of time

We all know what i was trying to prove. You said that Walcott and Baer were not all time greats, which you were proven wrong as more than the majority of the user said that he was, half even explained and broke it down for you. But of course, you ignored it and continued your bias and close minded ways.

most users that have voted, im qute sure, have not even see walcott and baer, or if they did, they were youtube clips. im not gonna brag here about my knowledge or claim to be a know it all, but i've created several writing logs about those fighters, i collected old footage films, ive learned about their records, the dates on which they fought, the activity gap etc.

Funny how you claim to know more than everyone, when you don't know the guys of this forum. There are some very experienced users on this site and i doubt that they would vote if they didn't know what they were talking about.

i

f southpaw thinks he proved something with this poll he better look elsewhere. im not ignorant but im confident enough to say that when it comes to the subject of past time greats, i know a **** ton more than any of voters on that poll, who voted just for the sake of voting. this poll doesnt dictate what i know.

I proved a lot of things in this thread. I proved that you are willing to spew out anything, has biased views and discredits legends to get your point across, which you never did. look at the quality of posters that disagreed with you. They are some of the most knowledgable posters on this site. Thunder Lips, Poet, Brocton Lip, Sweetscience, Pea****, Ree****yaluss ect( sorry if i left anyone out). These posters know their stuff.

i pretty much done arguing my point here. if those people think that for some crazy reason guys like walcott and baer (who were pretty damn good fighters, and HOFs) are all time greats, then i need to take my business elsewhere, convincing people of the truth is something pointless here.

You need to revisit Walcott and Baer becuase you seen like you haven't seen anything other than their boxrec listing or youtube clips. I suggest you read up on your history, browse articles or anaylize their fights ect. Throughout this entire debate, you were only focused on Tyson than anythig else. While not a bad guy, you need to fix some of the flaws in your views and assestments.

[Boogie Nights]

you keep following what the polls say. you seemed to ignore what yogi, manchine, blackirish, and couple of others have said. these are posters that have more credentials than the ones you listed, and they agree with what the obvious is. and unlike the people you've mentioned they actually explained in detail why the felt walcott and baer were not great

i like how ignored my post about tyson, and maintain that he was ducking guys when ive clearly proven you wrong.

you said they beat great names, walcott beat charlez, baer beat schmeling, anything else are good contenders, because of that you make them greats.

anyway you think what you want, this is my last post here. you not a bad guy either, but you turn around and twist what people said. you're the one who created this thread and completely took a 180 degree turn of what we were discussion before

what you fail to aknowledge is that there are a few olders here, like myself, and couple of others who followed the sport more than you did

all you came up with were lies about tyson, and you're using people who voted as the reason to back up what you said

[randy johnson]

According to someone(I won't say his name to protect the little credibility that he has) Walcott and Max Baer are not great.

Lets see here. Walcott didn't get his opportunity to challenge to a title until he was older. Him and Joe Louis are the exact same age and Louis first had his title shot(against Tommy Far) at the age of 23 years old. Walcott was 33 at the time he first had his title shot and back then, set the record for becoming the oldest heavyweight champion at 37. He also had impressive names on his record such as Harold Johnson- An underrated legend that has wins over Archie Moore, prime Ezzard Charles, Auturo Goody, Bob scatterfield and a few others. He was a very skilled technition in the ring and doesn't get the proper respect in which he deserves. Walcott also has wins over Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim and a lot of good contedners.

Max Baer- Was a very tough and powerful heavyweight and once champion. His right hand was deadly and anniliated Primo Carnera. Baer has wins over Far, Galento, Smelling and a lot of others good fighters.


The fact is neither Baer or Walcott were that good.Just because you name fighters they fought proves they were good?All fighters have names right?So i could say everybody who Tye Fields fight were legends and then give you their names.Walcott beat Charles?So Charles beat Walcott was it 2 or 3 times not to mention Charles was a middleweight who boxed at that weight class for 7 or 8 years and only moved up because he couldnt get a shot at the middleweight title.
Baer beat Carnera a mob controlled fighter with no real skill just size,Galento a fat racist piece of trash,Smcheling a fighter only known for beating Louis a man who pretty much for bum after bum who only fought 2 black fighters in his career.None of these people are that great you know.You also know boxing was alot different back then...the fighters then might of had more balls but they weren't as skilled as modern fighters.
Baer and Walcott are built up so it would look like Marciano fought some good people and Louis fought some good people.Do people consider Michael Moorer a all time great?He fought better fighters than these guys did and lost less times.I never heard anybody say Tommy Morrison was all time great even though 2 of the 3 people who beat him became world champions.Even a guy like Buster Douglas had more skill than Baer or Walcott but nobody thinks he is great do they?