1947 Jersey Joe Walcott vs 1979 Larry Holmes

[uncle ben]

You can tell the newbies of the sport who believe size in the hwt division is so important. Forget the technical aspects of the most technical of all sports just focus on weight and physique.....pure rubbish. Any weight difference between Holmes and Walcott would be inconsequential to the outcome of the fight.

Correct. As I pointed out above, Weaver at 200 pounds gave Holmes a tough fight. Walcott at 194-196 pounds would have plenty enough size for the 209 pound Holmes (that's how much he was the night he decisioned Norton). Actually, Walcott would have been closer in size to Holmes (13-15 pounds) than Holyfield was to Bowe (30 pounds).

And Snipes did floor Holmes. Walcott was a better fighter and at least as hard a puncher as Snipes. He also was much more skilled and arguably a lot more durable than Shavers.

[uncle ben]

In all other sports, athletes have made progress.

If we are to believe “boxingscene.forum”, boxers have not.

Matching John L. Sullivan against Anthony Joshua, and our minds are puzzled about what the outcome would be.

It only seems that way because the heavies of today are larger. If they were still 180-200ish youi wouldn't be saying that. Let's look at the lighter weight classes. If boxing has advanced so much, then if we put Kell Brook in a time machine and sent him back to 1946, he should be ruling the welter weight division with an iron fist. Kovalev and Ward should have guys like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins cowering in fear.

The thing is, a light heavy or welter of the 40's would be fighting a guy more or less his own size. But a 185 pound heavy of yesteryear may be fighting a skilled 240 pounder. And even then, if we aren't talking about the best of the best, some of the smaller heavies of yesteryear may have taken some of todays super heavies. Would Jack Sharkey really have no hope against Gary Cornish?

The reason today's heavies seem better is because they're bigger. For example, if we took 215 pound Holyfield the night he stopped Tyson and put him against a 1960 Floyd Patterson, many would pick Holyfield to win. If we took the cruiser version of Holyfield and put him against Patterson, many would pick Patterson. What changed? Size. It's not that Holyfield was so much better what with his modern skills and Patterson so much worse with his old 1950's and 60's skills, it's that a heavy Holyfield would have more strength and physicality. But put a 190 pound Holyfield against a 190 pound Patterson and many would pick Patterson to take him.

[joseph5620]

Correct. As I pointed out above, Weaver at 200 pounds gave Holmes a tough fight. Walcott at 194-196 pounds would have plenty enough size for the 209 pound Holmes (that's how much he was the night he decisioned Norton). Actually, Walcott would have been closer in size to Holmes (13-15 pounds) than Holyfield was to Bowe (30 pounds).

And Snipes did floor Holmes. Walcott was a better fighter and at least as hard a puncher as Snipes. He also was much more skilled and arguably a lot more durable than Shavers.

If you're going to keep mentioning Holmes getting knocked down then you should also include the multiple times Walcott was knocked out. Holmes was a better fighter than Walcott.

[Tom Cruise]

Holmes is obviously way above Walcott on a all time list, but cant help but think that Walcott is an absolute nightmare for Holmes.

Not sure if he wins or not, but Holmes would look like crap imo just due to how awkward Walcott was in combination with his sharp, hard punching style.

The battle of one of the Goat HW jabs, vs one of the goat jab counterers at HW would be something to see.

[uncle ben]

If you're going to keep mentioning Holmes getting knocked down then you should also include the multiple times Walcott was knocked out. Holmes was a better fighter than Walcott.

I'm only mentioning it because some are acting as if since Walcott was under 200 he'd be a walk in the park for Holmes. I'm just pointing out that despite that he hit harder and was at least as durable as some of Holmes more tougher opponents and superior in skills. As I said Weaver at about 200 gave Holmes all he could handle. So would Walcott at 196 pounds really be too small?

[elfag]

Larry Holmes would beat his ass and then ass **** him.

[uncle ben]

Holmes is obviously way above Walcott on a all time list, but cant help but think that Walcott is an absolute nightmare for Holmes.

Not sure if he wins or not, but Holmes would look like crap imo just due to how awkward Walcott was in combination with his sharp, hard punching style.,

The battle of one of the Goat HW jabs, vs one of the goat jab counterers at HW would be something to see.

Ring Magazine had Walcott vs Holmes as one of their 50 greatest fights of all time which never happened

[HOUDINI563]

Just watch Walcott KO over Charles. That's high level boxing skills. The ability to slip, parry, duck, bob and weave, block punches and then counter to vital areas of an opponents head and body are the skills of the sport. Walcott had these skills in spades over Holmes. In terms of weight Joe was a heavily cut 195 pound hwt. You never saw Holmes that shredded in any of his bouts. The weight difference would be meaningless.

[uncle ben]

Walcot is a ***** ass and Holmes would knock him out.

Why such disrespectful comments about a fighter especially one that is deceased? It's One thing if you think Holmes would win but why name call him. Walcott may have grandchildren or other relatives which read these forums. Would you want to read those type of comments about your deceased grandfather or uncle?

[uncle ben]

Just watch Walcott KO over Charles. That's high level boxing skills. The ability to slip, parry, duck, bob and weave, block punches and then counter to vital areas of an opponents head and body are the skills of the sport. Walcott had these skills in spades over Holmes. In terms of weight Joe was a heavily cut 195 pound hwt. You never saw Holmes that shredded in any of his bouts. The weight difference would be meaningless.

Correct. Walcott was very muscular and powerfully built and this was without steroids