Henry Armstrong vs Barbados Joe Walcott

Minotauro · Post by **Minotauro** » 06 May 2007, 14:22

I was thinking about this fight and wondered who you think would have won this at welterweight between the original Joe Walcott and Henry Armstrong.

Joe Walcott
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=021091
Henry Armstrong
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=9018

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 May 2007, 16:38

Pound for Pound this goes Armstrongs way...but the size discrepancy is too much for me to beleive that Henry could prevail.

This simulation comes out about the way I would imagine it.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 06 May 2007, 17:25

Haha BoxBuzz...

Barbados Joe, not Jersey Joe.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 May 2007, 18:15

Damn...I hate when that happens....but it was a damn good thrashing that old Jersey Joe gave 'enry....one he deserved for taking on a heavyweight. As for my miscue.. I will get busy and straighten this out and post a less comical fight straightaway.

Minotauro · Post by **Minotauro** » 06 May 2007, 19:16

BoxBuzz wrote:Pound for Pound this goes Armstrongs way...but the size discrepancy is too much for me to beleive that Henry could prevail.

This simulation comes out about the way I would imagine it.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

my bad, should have been more clear on which Joe Walcott I was talking about.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 May 2007, 20:21

Minotauro wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Pound for Pound this goes Armstrongs way...but the size discrepancy is too much for me to beleive that Henry could prevail.

This simulation comes out about the way I would imagine it.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=
my bad, should have been more clear on which Joe Walcott I was talking about.

Not at all, you even posted the fighters respective records. Can't be much clearer than that. I just jumped to a comical assumption because I must have been in need of a laugh. Allow me to redeem myself by posting the more competitive simulated version of this theoretical. I would put money on Armstrong in this encounter. I think it would be a far better chess match that the one depicted here. I think it would be classic Slugger vs Boxer but the Slugger in this case has the inside track.
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 06 May 2007, 21:25

BoxBuzz wrote:
Minotauro wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Pound for Pound this goes Armstrongs way...but the size discrepancy is too much for me to beleive that Henry could prevail.

This simulation comes out about the way I would imagine it.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=
my bad, should have been more clear on which Joe Walcott I was talking about.

Not at all, you even posted the fighters respective records. Can't be much clearer than that. I just jumped to a comical assumption because I must have been in need of a laugh. Allow me to redeem myself by posting the more competitive simulated version of this theoretical. I would put money on Armstrong in this encounter. I think it would be a far better chess match that the one depicted here. I think it would be classic Slugger vs Boxer but the Slugger in this case has the inside track.
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Thanks for the laugh earlier, mate. To those people who claim you don't know anything about boxing I say "So what, he's a fekkin treasure!".

barry · Post by **barry** » 07 May 2007, 01:14

>>>>>They were the same height, and Armstrong was used to fighting welterweights.<<<<

No they weren't...Armstrong was 5' 5 1/2" and Walcott was 5' 1 1/2".

That's what makes Walcott's career so spectacular...he was the height of a flyweight and fought and beat light heavyweights and also heavyweights.

A bout between the two would be damn close, but I would have to lean toward Armstrong, but with Armstrong's "balls to the wall" brawling style I could also see Walcott knocking Armstrong cold. Out of ten fights I would say that Armstrong wins 6 out of every ten bouts between the two.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 07 May 2007, 13:30

..buzzy..you should know better than to be subtle with this group...

...as for barbados joe....i just cannot see how a guy of that size could beat light heavies or heavies....even his straight jab would be a low blow and all the opponents would have to do is hit him on top of the head until they drove him into the canvas like a stake.

if his reach was as long as some say it was he'd be stepping on his own fists.

now..as for the fantasy match...armstrong fought miuch of the time with his head against the other guy's chest...so he'd have to fight on bended knee and that would count as a knockdown.

so..prediction...no contest.

barry · Post by **barry** » 07 May 2007, 17:41

>>>as for barbados joe....i just cannot see how a guy of that size could beat light heavies or heavies<<<

It's also why he rates very, very high in the p4p hardest hitters in history.

His bouts with George "Kid" Lavigne, at lightweight, were among the most vicious in history and Walcott was at his all-time best right around 135. Walcott was the smaller man in nearly all of his bouts and for him to be able to step up and not only compete with, but beat men like Dan Creedon, Joe Choynski (who KO'd Jack Johnson), Jack Bonner, Tommy West, Billy Stift, Frank Childs, Dixie Kid, George Cole, Sam Langford and especially the likes of Kid Carter, George Gardner, "Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien, Sandy Ferguson and Black Bill...well it was nothing short of phenomenal. The largest opponent that he faced was Fred Russell, who was a large heavyweight who was nothing near a top fighter, but the sheer size difference was probably one of the biggest in history. Russell was 100+ pounds heavier and was around 16 inches taller.

I really got a grasp of the size difference when looking a photo’s of Primo Carnera and Frankie Genaro squaring up in the ring. Genaro was standing in a regular chair and he still seemed to be shorter than Carnera, but that is a great photo to look at before looking at the career of Walcott as the size between Walcott is only off ½” Genaro was 5’ 1” But there are some other photo’s similar to the Genaro-Carnera which give the same kind of difference.

I cannot recall ever trying to compile an all-time p4p list of the greatest fighters ever, but it would be hard to keep Walcott out of the top-ten list based on his entire career…he was simply one of the most remarkable fighting machines there ever was, which a fighter who gives away such a size difference it is typically small fighters who rely on speed, such as Mayweather, but Walcott was as physical as it got…I just cannot say enough how remarkable his boxing career was…one of the best ever!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 May 2007, 19:05

barry wrote:>>>as for barbados joe....i just cannot see how a guy of that size could beat light heavies or heavies<<<

It's also why he rates very, very high in the p4p hardest hitters in history.

His bouts with George "Kid" Lavigne, at lightweight, were among the most vicious in history and Walcott was at his all-time best right around 135. Walcott was the smaller man in nearly all of his bouts and for him to be able to step up and not only compete with, but beat men like Dan Creedon, Joe Choynski (who KO'd Jack Johnson), Jack Bonner, Tommy West, Billy Stift, Frank Childs, Dixie Kid, George Cole, Sam Langford and especially the likes of Kid Carter, George Gardner, "Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien, Sandy Ferguson and Black Bill...well it was nothing short of phenomenal. The largest opponent that he faced was Fred Russell, who was a large heavyweight who was nothing near a top fighter, but the sheer size difference was probably one of the biggest in history. Russell was 100+ pounds heavier and was around 16 inches taller.

I really got a grasp of the size difference when looking a photo’s of Primo Carnera and Frankie Genaro squaring up in the ring. Genaro was standing in a regular chair and he still seemed to be shorter than Carnera, but that is a great photo to look at before looking at the career of Walcott as the size between Walcott is only off ½” Genaro was 5’ 1” But there are some other photo’s similar to the Genaro-Carnera which give the same kind of difference.

I cannot recall ever trying to compile an all-time p4p list of the greatest fighters ever, but it would be hard to keep Walcott out of the top-ten list based on his entire career…he was simply one of the most remarkable fighting machines there ever was, which a fighter who gives away such a size difference it is typically small fighters who rely on speed, such as Mayweather, but Walcott was as physical as it got…I just cannot say enough how remarkable his boxing career was…one of the best ever!

What I have read has been impressive indeed but I'm sure you have covered more detail than I. I got the impression he was more boxer than slugger, but you describe his as being very physical.....Should I take from that he was more slugger? It would be contrary to my memory on the subject. When I think of the most physical fighters my mind conjours up the swarmers, and those who take few steps back and are willing to take two to deliver one. Is this a wrong assumption on my part?

barry · Post by **barry** » 07 May 2007, 20:44

Walcott was much more the physical fighter opposed to boxer. He was a great boxer as well no question about it, but he won more on physicality than he did on skill, which considering how he almost always was giving away size, he was still able to physically dominate bigger men, which his powerful punch was what gave him the means to be physical…his opponents, regardless of size, knew that if Walcott landed, he usually knocked out.

I have a ton of newspaper clips covering most of his fights, which I would post some if I knew how to do so on this forum, but I wish that there was a better and quicker way than to scan articles. His bouts with Lavigne were among the most physical and most brutal in boxing history, as were his bouts with Mysterious Billy Smith, Kid Carter, etc. His powerful punch was his very best asset, but his strength and durability were also his best assets.

Walcott would be a great subject for someone to write a biography on!

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 08 May 2007, 14:55

We probably never in our lifetime would see fighters like Armstrong or Barbados Demon Walcott. 2 top 50 men in my book.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 08 May 2007, 23:29

..show me a heavyweight who loses to a five foot tall welterweight and i will show you a very bad heavyweight or a heavyweight who bet on the welterweight,....

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 08 May 2007, 23:58

....ps.....i should add that those who are ready to scream JOE CHOYNSKI and SAM LANGFORD.....check out their weights first...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 09 May 2007, 07:36

Jaclem wrote:....ps.....i should add that those who are ready to scream JOE CHOYNSKI and SAM LANGFORD.....check out their weights first...

And their heights as well. Both were were well over 5' tall.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 10 May 2007, 08:05

duplicate

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 10 May 2007, 08:06

granberry wrote:
Decagon wrote:They were the same height, and Armstrong was used to fighting welterweights.
They were the same height?

LOL

Clueless boxing "expert" decagon strikes again.

Walcott was 5 feet 1 and 1/2" tall.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 10 May 2007, 08:10

Jaclem wrote:..buzzy..you should know better than to be subtle with this group...

...as for barbados joe....i just cannot see how a guy of that size could beat light heavies or heavies....even his straight jab would be a low blow and all the opponents would have to do is hit him on top of the head until they drove him into the canvas like a stake.

if his reach was as long as some say it was he'd be stepping on his own fists.

now..as for the fantasy match...armstrong fought miuch of the time with his head against the other guy's chest...so he'd have to fight on bended knee and that would count as a knockdown.

so..prediction...no contest.

If you are totally unfamiliar with a subject

WHY COMMENT ON IT?

I expect better from you, Jaclem.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 10 May 2007, 08:14

Give it up Barry.

You are trying to communicate to the clueless.

What these clowns know about the subject they could write on the head of a pin.

But that doesn't stop them from offering their DEEP THOUGHTS.

What a pathetic exhibition this thread is.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 10 May 2007, 23:34

granberry....i'm glad you expect good comments from me, but i'm not sure what it is in my post you think shows my ignorance of the subject....i know how tall walcott was...i know how tall and how much light heavies and heavies weigh....i know what barbados joe's reach was... and i wrote just about those subjects...

..i also know...probably knew before .....if not you....before many here that the original joe was a great fighter....strong for his weight and a deadly puncher....and had lots of stamina in an era when that was a requirment

.....plus...i also dated a girl from barbados many years ago...and she had a remarkable resemblance to the barbados demon....i took pictures of her, forged his autograph and sold them to collectors. unfortunately she was stabbed in a knife fight when she caught me with another girl who looked amazingly like battling siki...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 11 May 2007, 10:07

barry wrote:Walcott was much more the physical fighter opposed to boxer. He was a great boxer as well no question about it, but he won more on physicality than he did on skill, which considering how he almost always was giving away size, he was still able to physically dominate bigger men, which his powerful punch was what gave him the means to be physical…his opponents, regardless of size, knew that if Walcott landed, he usually knocked out.

I have a ton of newspaper clips covering most of his fights, which I would post some if I knew how to do so on this forum, but I wish that there was a better and quicker way than to scan articles. His bouts with Lavigne were among the most physical and most brutal in boxing history, as were his bouts with Mysterious Billy Smith, Kid Carter, etc. His powerful punch was his very best asset, but his strength and durability were also his best assets.

Walcott would be a great subject for someone to write a biography on!

I believe he was extremely fast as well and used to smother his opponents with his attacks... in fact Armstrong and Walcott probably had very simular styles... what are the best net sites where you can find articles on Walcott?.... I used to have quite a few addresses but lost them when my pc went mad on me a while back....

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 May 2007, 10:12

barry wrote:>>>>>They were the same height, and Armstrong was used to fighting welterweights.<<<<

No they weren't...Armstrong was 5' 5 1/2" and Walcott was 5' 1 1/2".

That's what makes Walcott's career so spectacular...he was the height of a flyweight and fought and beat light heavyweights and also heavyweights.

A bout between the two would be damn close, but I would have to lean toward Armstrong, but with Armstrong's "balls to the wall" brawling style I could also see Walcott knocking Armstrong cold. Out of ten fights I would say that Armstrong wins 6 out of every ten bouts between the two.

I don't know enough about Walcott to comment with any authority but when I read the thread my line of thought was basically the same as this. Walcott had a punch that could KO just about anyone at the weight. Of course it's almost impossible to go against Armstrong so I'll step back and read on.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 11 May 2007, 11:17

First of all let me say that I know what I know if you know what I mean.

Secondly let me congratulate Granberry on his critique of the thread. It is only through deficit inventory such as this that truth can be revealed and we can forge forward toward greater enlightenment. I have read a few articles on Barbados Joe and from these authors I felt I was being told that he was more boxer than slugger. However I have come to learn that barry is one of those deep diggers and when he shares his knowledge it is based on many viewpoints. He distills the countering opinions, weighs the various sources and then typically calibrates those thoughts based on what he considers to be only the "premium information". I often learn something when I read his contributions.

I also hope that I might impart the value of an occasional "appreciative inquiry" approach to the learning process. In that spirit I offer the following

Granberry, you indeed have some knowledge on several subjects, these subjects remain a delicious mystery to be solved and some of us look forward in great anticipation to the further defining of that particular rubic's cube. Be that as it may, it is your opinions and not your knowledge that perpetually delight, entertain and bring smiles to your reading public. Never stop contributing. Never stop educating. And never stop that locomotive of a mind from exploding upon this very scene bursting with shared thought that only a few of us will ever have the depth of mind, soul and character to genuinely appreciate.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 11 May 2007, 15:00

Poor buzz has LOTS of trouble with comprehension.

Any five year old could understand

that if decagon writes that Barbados Joe Walcott and Henry Armstrong were THE SAME HEIGHT

when anybody with the slightest knowledge of Walcott would know he was 5' 1 1/2" tall

that decagon is writing on a topic he doesn't have a clue about.

Even a difference in simple grade school level numbers is too much for poor buzz to comprehend.

Henry Armstrong vs Barbados Joe Walcott

Henry Armstrong vs Barbados Joe Walcott

re

re

Re: re

re

Re: re

Re: re