My thoughts on Jersey Joe..

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 01:03

I was watching the film of his rematch with joe louis. it was the first time in a while that i had sit down n actually watched it with all my attention, focused. i really think he was a rare fighter. he had a great right hook, but the wierd thing about him was the 2 step he would do as he moved in on his opponent. he would almost look like hes dancing towards you, only to trick you because he was coming to get you with that right hook of his.

has anyone here seen his fights? is it this uniqueness that led him to being such a great fighter? what are your thoughts on jersey joe.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 01:18

another wierd thing i discovered...whats with his bad luck in rematches.... he fights and loses to ezzard charles in their rematch. he puts up an awesome fight with joe louis in their first fight, but then gets KO in the rematch. knocks marciano down in the first fight, jersey joe was winning for 12 rounds. gets KO in the first in the rematch...anyone know what the deal is with that?

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 01:19

was it easier to learn from ur mistakes against this guy then most other fighters?

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 23 Oct 2005, 02:43

It could be that he was fighting 3 of the greatest heavyweights of all-time...two of them easily top 10, and it's possible to make a case for Charles in the top 10 as well. Walcott was a great heavyweight, but Charles, Louis, and Marciano were all better.

CarneraKOsSharkey · Post by **CarneraKOsSharkey** » 23 Oct 2005, 03:07

As far as Jersey Joe's bad luck in rematches, I always thought he just packed it in during the second Marciano fight. He was 39 years old and that was the last fight he ever had. He did get knocked out in the first round but from everything I have ever read (I have not seen the fight), he simply waited for the ref to finish the count, then got up.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 23 Oct 2005, 03:09

Decagon wrote:Walcott went 2-2 with Charles and 1-1 with Louis. He won more rounds than Marciano did, but none of the fights.

Actually Walcott was 0-2 against Louis. He lost a split decision in the first fight and was KO'd late in the rematch.

It was Ezzard Charles who beat Louis, not Walcott.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 23 Oct 2005, 03:17

Decagon wrote:I'm talking about what actually went on, not that crappy-ass decision Louis got in the first fight. Walcott beat Louis so bad that Louis left the ring before the decision was announced.

Gotcha

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 10:38

Decagon wrote:I'm talking about what actually went on, not that crappy-ass decision Louis got in the first fight. Walcott beat Louis so bad that Louis left the ring before the decision was announced.

thats actually not true i saw the fight last night. louis went over and congratulated jersey joe and then louis left and jersey joes trainers held up his hand and the crowd went nuts

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Oct 2005, 14:27

another wierd thing i discovered...whats with his bad luck in rematches.... he fights and loses to ezzard charles in their rematch. he puts up an awesome fight with joe louis in their first fight, but then gets KO in the rematch. knocks marciano down in the first fight, jersey joe was winning for 12 rounds. gets KO in the first in the rematch...anyone know what the deal is with that?

Walcott was an extremely good fighter but like ive said on other post,has become quite overrated. He was too inconsistant to be considered an all time great. his moments of greatness were fleeting and he lost to alot of fighters throughout his career that a true great should not have lost to.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 20:16

Decagon wrote:No. Watch that fight again. Louis left the ring right after the fight ended. Once they announced that he was the winner, they caught up to him and told him to go back to the ring. He went back and apologized to Walcott. You might have an edited version. Did you tape it off of ESPN or something?

i leased the video form my local library. i see louis standing there the whole time.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2005, 20:17

theone wrote:
another wierd thing i discovered...whats with his bad luck in rematches.... he fights and loses to ezzard charles in their rematch. he puts up an awesome fight with joe louis in their first fight, but then gets KO in the rematch. knocks marciano down in the first fight, jersey joe was winning for 12 rounds. gets KO in the first in the rematch...anyone know what the deal is with that?
Walcott was an extremely good fighter but like ive said on other post,has become quite overrated. He was too inconsistant to be considered an all time great. his moments of greatness were fleeting and he lost to alot of fighters throughout his career that a true great should not have lost to.

hmm where do you rank jersey joe on your altime heavyweight list?

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Oct 2005, 22:00

Walcott simply fought a lot of good guys and fought them more than once

Just the fact that he lost to those fighters in the first place keeps me from calling him an alltime great.

hmm where do you rank jersey joe on your altime heavyweight list?

Maybe in the lower end of the top twenty or twenty five. I have to think about it more.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Oct 2005, 22:03

the one,

If you knew the stories behind the record, which is the fun part of studying boxing history you would know (better yet understand) that Walcott was on relief, starving and struggling to feed his family, taking fights on a last minute's notice when not in shape just to put some extra bread on his family's table.

Walcott was a slick fighter, and his feints, jukes, slips, rolls are not being duplicated by any heavyweight today.

fact is when walcott was at his best, he was tough to beat by anyone. he was inconsisten and for less importan fights he didnt bring his A game. he lost to maxim, but won the two rematches vs maxim.

walcott lost a lot of fights pre 1945, because he had no training, was terribly malnourished, and took big fights on a couple days notice. against abe simon, he outboxed simon easily for the first 5 rounds, then got ran out of gas and got knocked out in the 6th more from exhaustion than anything. walcott had noe energy, terribly out of shape.

walcott primed late in his mid thirties, and IMO he proved himself an all time great though he was inconsistent. he beat many great fighters, and showed what he can do against the elites. walcott nearly beat joe louis twice, nearly beat rocky marciano, and went 2-2 against ezzard charles.

walcott at his best would give anyone fits IMO.

look at some of the fighters walcott beat:

joe baski- a big heavy(u like these kind o heavies) 6'2 218lb with a big punch, a top heavyweight contender

Lee Q murray - 6' 207lbs, a solid heavyweight contender

curtis sheppard- heavyweight contender and hard hitter who knocked out joey maxim in one round. walcott knocked him out, after getting off the canvas.

jimmy bivins- top heavyweight contender 52-5 hadnt lossed in 3 years. bivins was a very good heavy. walcott even managed to floor bivins on his way to outpointing him.

joey maxim- HOF light heavyweight, very slick boxer. he beat walcott on a controversial decision, but walcott outboxed him clearly in the rematch.

elmer ray- 77-9 record. one of the hardest hitting heavies, rated in RINGS top 100 GREATES PUNCHERS. walcott lost the first fight in a close controversial decision(i have the article if anyone wants it) but knocked ray down and outpointed him in the rematch. he also knocked out elmer ray many years earlier.

joe louis- i say this because most though walcott won the first fight. louis was past his prime but still had alot of stuff left and wasnt shot. the fact that walcott did so well shows u how great walcott truelly is. it took joe louis 26 rounds to figure walcott out. walcott knocked him down 3 times in two fights.

harold johnson- HOF light H great slick boxer, walcott knocked him out in 3 rounds

johnn skorr- a respectable tough journeyman who at 6'3 220lb, could hit hard. skorr had recently knocked out top heavy contender tami muariello. walcott knocked out shkorr in one round

hein ten hoff- over 6' 218lbs, another big heavy who had a 18-0 record. walcott knocked him out.

ezzard charles- HOF, perhaps greatest light-H of all time, and also was a good heavyweight champion and top 15 heav all time. walcott knocked him out WITH THE PERFECT PUNCH, and also outpointed charles in the rematch. charles was heavyweight champion when walcott beat him, and charles hadnt lossed in years yet alone been knocked out.

rocky marciano- all time great heavyweight, walcott outboxed him for 12 action packed rounds before sucumbing to one of the greatest punches ever thrown. no harm there. the fact he did so well against marciano shows u how good walcott is.

so as u see when walcott brought his A game he was able to beat a lot of great contenders and champions.

IF U WATCH WALCOTT ON FILM IN HIS BEST FIGHTS, HE LOOKED AMAZING. ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE GREATEST RING TECHNICIANS.
u have to look at what a fighter did in his prime in this case, to define greatness. u have to judge how he looked on film if he is truelly all time great.

one thing about walcott is besides louis and marciano, he avenged all the losses he had post 1946 when given a rematch. ray, maxim, skippy allen, charles.

Curtis Sheppard, a tough trial horse contender from the 1940s who fought just about everyone, once said, "Walcott was the best. Jersey hit like a mule and knew how to draw you in."

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Oct 2005, 22:34

If you knew the stories behind the record, which is the fun part of studying boxing history you would know (better yet understand) that Walcott was on relief, starving and struggling to feed his family, taking fights on a last minute's notice when not in shape just to put some extra bread on his family's table.

I know the story quite well, i'm judging Walcott from 1945 and on. That was the year he was finally able to train properly for fights. And he was still 23-10.

fact is when walcott was at his best, he was tough to beat by anyone. he was inconsisten and for less importan fights he didnt bring his A game. he lost to maxim, but won the two rematches vs maxim.

This is a cop out. Every time he lost he didnt take it serious? you can make this excuse for any fighter in history.

walcott primed late in his mid thirties, and IMO he proved himself an all time great though he was inconsistent. he beat many great fighters, and showed what he can do against the elites. walcott nearly beat joe louis twice, nearly beat rocky marciano, and went 2-2 against ezzard charles.

Consistency should be taken into account when calling someone an all time great. Nearly, almost ,coulda, shoulda, does not a great fighter make.
A very good heavyweight, which i consider Walcott, should be expected to at least split with a former light heavyweight great on the downslide.

joe baski- ok win.

Lee Q murray - lost two other fights the year Walcott beat him. One guy was 7-5-2 the other guy was 25-21-2.

curtis sheppard- Horrible fighter. lost almost as much as he won.

jimmy bivins- ok win, but bivins was really a light heavy and was past his best.

joey maxim- ok win.

elmer ray- in prime fought 2 very close fights with Walcott. Good wins.

harold johnson- too small and not yet at his best when they fought.

johnn skorr- Not a good fighter. A win over him means nothing.

hein ten hoff- inexperienced fighter who never amounted to anything.

Walcott wa exciting no doubt. Could on his very best nights be great. Overall a very good fighter. All time great, I just dont see it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Oct 2005, 22:49

bivins was very much in his prime when he fought walcott. bivins was ONLY 26, and bivins was 26-0-1 in his last 27 fights and hadnt lossed in 4 years!!!!!

it was a huge win for walcott over the # 1 contender and feared jimmy bivins. its what started walcott on the top of the heavy scene.

check ur fact before u state false facts, bivins was coming off knockout wins over moore, and lyoyd marshall.

curtis sheppard was a very tough trialhorse/ contender who was one of the hardest hitters of that era.

look at the great fighters walcott fought from 1945 on, and look how he did against all time great heavies marciano and louis.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Oct 2005, 17:30

bivins was very much in his prime when he fought walcott. bivins was ONLY 26, and bivins was 26-0-1 in his last 27 fights and hadnt lossed in 4 years!!!!

!

You may have a point here I give you that. After the close loss to Walcott however Bivins never could win a big fight again. Maybe the Walcott fight was his last as a great fighter or maybe Walcott caught him just in time.

curtis sheppard was a very tough trialhorse/ contender who was one of the hardest hitters of that era.

Shepard was indeed a trailhorse, and it was no great feat whatsoever to beat him.

look at the great fighters walcott fought from 1945 on, and look how he did against all time great heavies marciano and louis.

I did. He fought like a very good fighter who could raise his game at times.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Oct 2005, 05:44

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:bivins was very much in his prime when he fought walcott. bivins was ONLY 26, and bivins was 26-0-1 in his last 27 fights and hadnt lossed in 4 years!!!!!

it was a huge win for walcott over the # 1 contender and feared jimmy bivins. its what started walcott on the top of the heavy scene.

This was just around the same time that Bivins won a 6 round exhibition against a 230ish lb heavyweight champion Joe Louis. That's what really made Bivins big in the heavyweight division. I agree. It was a gigantic win for Walcott.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 06 Mar 2006, 17:23

nothing "overated" about jersey joe walcott, he was one of the greatest fighters to grace the sport... FULL STOP, period!!!

theone · Post by **theone** » 06 Mar 2006, 18:42

nothing "overated" about jersey joe walcott, he was one of the greatest fighters to grace the sport... FULL STOP, period!!!

Be more specific..one of the what greatest? Twenty greatest? Thirty greatest?

I can name at least fifteen heavyweights who were better than Walcott and can think of double that number of lower weight fighters who were easily better than him. If you believe Walcott is one of the thirty greatest fighters of all time than you are definitly overrating him.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 09 Mar 2006, 08:24

JJ Walcott is extremely overlooked as a quality fighter. He is among only people to have ever knocked down Rocky Marciano (along with Archie Moore) and Marciano fought the likes of Joe Louis, Roland Lastarza and Ezzard Charles.

Walcott did lose to Charles twce but by the same token, he defeated Charles twice, so they're evened out.

Had Walcott been born in a different era he would be called a great, unluckily he was along the same era as two better fighters (Louis + Marciano) and a fighter equally good, (Charles).

Walcott = extremely underrated and underappreciated...