like who?overall frazier is better than marciano many experts agree
marciano has some great names in his list (walcott louis charles moore) but these people were prehistoric and maybe some of them display some flashiness after their prime displays how good they were but they just couldnt keep it up long enough to finish the clumsy guy
The things Walcott could do in the ring were truely amazing, Walcott invented the moves, Ali made them famous. I firmly believe the Walcott of the Louis I/ and Marciano I is a top 5 HW head-to-head. I mean he soundly beat the #1 head-to-head (a little past it but not much) and was robbed. I read a post on here or ESB about sparring footage of Walcott where he does an amazing move or two, I would love to see it if any of you have it.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:a walcott that would not retire 25 times would dance him dizzy
most historians and ringsiders veiw walcotts first marciano fight as one of his finest preformances.
walcott was truly great even being old and having all those struggles retiring and fighting on short notices against solid oposition may hurt his record # wise but man he really had some nice moves ive never seen footwork like that like ali may look faster but jersey had those amazing two steps side steps shoulder shuffles that looked awesome and kept opp off balance a lotBrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:a walcott that would not retire 25 times would dance him dizzy
most historians and ringsiders veiw walcotts first marciano fight as one of his finest preformances.
e.c.flurry wrote:walcott was truly great even being old and having all those struggles retiring and fighting on short notices against solid oposition may hurt his record # wise but man he really had some nice moves ive never seen footwork like that like ali may look faster but jersey had those amazing two steps side steps shoulder shuffles that looked awesome and kept opp off balance a lotBrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:a walcott that would not retire 25 times would dance him dizzy
most historians and ringsiders veiw walcotts first marciano fight as one of his finest preformances.
and that marciano punch was crazy i really tthought hearns right hand to duran was the most awesome right hand but after seeing marciano's no chance at all with rocky's suzie q (actually if someone has a pic of that shot please post it)
even tough i it looked like i was really flaming marciano i have him top 4th or 5th (cant remember have my list at work) i just feel he could have a lot of trouble with other greats
That must have been the punch that made Walcott to start slumping to one knee. If you watch it closely, you will see Marciano nail him with a left hook just before Walcott's knee hit the canvas. It would have been interesting to see if Marciano hadn't been able to catch Walcott with the left hook; would Walcott have been able to beat the count and if so would he have been able to survive the the rest of the round?BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:BB -Is that picture from their first or 2nd fight?
the 1st fight, thats the real knockout blow compared to some other pictures u might see
Really? I did the math and that's over 11 days! I'm surprised that you were impressed with Marciano's punch.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ampling app,
the left hook barely landed. it was AN UNEEDED left hook that just grazed his head. walcott was already out cold far before the left hook landed. the left hook in fact did nothing it was not needed.
the force of the right hand was so powerful it made walcott do a delayed reaction going to one knee then slump to the canvas
walcott may have beat the count, if the count was 1,000,000!
Ambling Alp wrote:Really? I did the math and that's over 11 days! I'm surprised that you were impressed with Marciano's punch.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ampling app,
the left hook barely landed. it was AN UNEEDED left hook that just grazed his head. walcott was already out cold far before the left hook landed. the left hook in fact did nothing it was not needed.
the force of the right hand was so powerful it made walcott do a delayed reaction going to one knee then slump to the canvas
walcott may have beat the count, if the count was 1,000,000!
:P :P :P 
Would anyone/everyone agree that Jersey Joe Walcott was the most enigmatic stylist of the entire span of heavyweights? His record does not quite live up to his displayed skills, and he seems to be the one fighter that gets a wider parameter of opinions and assessments. Different people see very different things when it comes to this guy. I cant' think of anyone who gets a wider divergence of opinions than him, in more ways than one. Power, stamina, ring intelligence, cosistency/inconsistency, ingenuity and originality.
I agree that there seems to be a wide range of opinion regarding Walcott. I think this is because there are several factors that determine how high you could rate him. If you just looked at his record (53-18-1) you wouldn't think he was even of the top 100 heavyweights ever.BoxBuzz wrote:e.c. Thank you for your assessment. It's nice to get some new, well thought out opinions to challenge some of our resident experts once in a while. It amazes me how well educated and studied minds in boxing can hone in on different attributes of certain boxers and then build a pretty good logical ladder of thought to support very different outcomes.
When your really digesting "best of the best" scenarios the subtle nuances can really lead you to different assumptions/conclusions.
The wild card in all of this is the state of mind any boxer is in on the day of the fight. It could lead to such surprises that about all we can do is make the best case for the "trends" we focused in on during our study of any particular boxer's career.
an art and a science to give "life" to such theoreticals. I am immensely entertained and educated by the different takes, and rarely have a seen any long winded "zany" scenario's here (other than my own).
I'd like to ask one thing without changing the subject too much.
Would anyone/everyone agree that Jersey Joe Walcott was the most enigmatic stylist of the entire span of heavyweights? His record does not quite live up to his displayed skills, and he seems to be the one fighter that gets a wider parameter of opinions and assessments. Different people see very different things when it comes to this guy. I cant' think of anyone who gets a wider divergence of opinions than him, in more ways than one. Power, stamina, ring intelligence, cosistency/inconsistency, ingenuity and originality.
Just a long term observation of mine.
3. He was only 7-7 in his prime (1st Louis fight to 2nd Marciano fight).
The loss to Rex Layne is less understandable. Layne was a good but not great fighter and great fighter in his prime should have been able to beat him.
he deserves top 20 and maybe top 15. in head to head i rate walcott 12th!I rate him in the top 25 all time, but much higher is pushing it.
Layne was yet another fighter that Marciano ruined? At 23, he nothing left after Marciano got through with him? I don't buy that BB. Layne was a decent fighter, but he was never really that great.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:3. He was only 7-7 in his prime (1st Louis fight to 2nd Marciano fight).
i would say his prime ended after 1st marciano bout. he looked like a old petrified lug in the ring in the rematch. he was finished after 1st marciano fight. he knew it too so he got out.
look at walcotts record, look at the fighters he beat from 1946-52 he beat some very good fighters and good big men and hard punchers.
The loss to Rex Layne is less understandable. Layne was a good but not great fighter and great fighter in his prime should have been able to beat him.
layne had a short prime that lasted up until he suffere brutal KO losses back to back v marciano and charles. layne admitted he was never the same after marciano. at only 23 he was ruined.
like u said layne was a good heavyweight and poster John garfield who saw and spent time behind the scenes in 1950s said "layne was a tough fighter who hit like a truck."
walcott coming into layne bout weighed a career high 200lb so he wasnt in the best shape. also, he underestimated layne and by all accounts i read and did not show up in best shape.
i own layne-walcott and from the rounds i seen 5 rounds i thought walcott won. but it was clear a veteran like walcott was caught off guard underestimating a 22 year old slugger who was highly thought of at the time.
- walcott was incosistent and had a habit of showing up out of shape or ill prepared for some non title bouts. he showed his true self in the title fights, where he always came in fully prepared.
- walcott wasnt aggresive as layne and let layne bull him to the ropes and outwork him.
like u said walcott had an off night, defintley
- if they fought a rematch i would have defintley taken walcott.
marchegiano007 wrote:the 51/52 marciano punched harder than the 54/55 it looks like rocky lose some punching power in his late career but in 51/52 he could had ko any heavyweigth in history.
good point glad u noticed, it was because goldman changed his style late in his career shortening rockys punches making him a bit more polished, and rocky became a more grind u down accumalative puncher than the slugger one punch KO artist of 51-52.