Page 5 of 8

Posted: 13 Apr 2006, 23:50
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote: So if Walcott was so great why did he lose to Layne, who drew his 2 previous fights against poor fighters.





regarding the walcott-layne fight, it was a simple case of an overweight(walcott weighing in over 200lb) and overconfident walcott taking a unproven prospect like rex layne lightly. layne at the time was 25-1 and considered a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. but i watched the fight, layne simply outworked walcott bullying walcott into the ropes and doing damage and better work on the inside. walcott did not let his hands go enough. it was a big upset. walcott took layne lightly and didnt train too hard(consider him coming in over 200lb) and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. however the fight was very close. however, walcott clearly did have an off night and its noticeable on film and I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch.

and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the post 1952 ruined layne that went on to lose a lot. the 50-52 layne was a lot better.


walcott was always inconsistent. however when walcott brought his A game, he was very tough to beat.
Walcott weighed only 2lbs less when he fought Marciano, hardly overweight when he fought Layne.

Walcott was very inconsistant, your right. You say he underestimated Layne, he also did Marciano, saying something like 'take my name out the record books if I can't beat this bum'.....maybe that means he never trained that hard for Marciano either !!!
walcott was 196lb when he fought rocky, walcott was 200lb vs layne.


walcott DID NOT UNDERESTIMATE MARCIANO, he went RIGHT AFTER MARCIANO TRYING TO TEAR HIS HEAD OFF!


u dont understimate someone if u go out trying to tear there head off. walcott hit marciano with the EXACT same left hook he knocked out charles with, but marciano was up at 3. charlie goldman once said he could not believe rocky got up from that shot. walcott once said he in utter shock when he turned around to see marciano on his feet after taking that shot. walcott thought the match was over right there and then.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 00:01
by Controversial
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:




regarding the walcott-layne fight, it was a simple case of an overweight(walcott weighing in over 200lb) and overconfident walcott taking a unproven prospect like rex layne lightly. layne at the time was 25-1 and considered a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. but i watched the fight, layne simply outworked walcott bullying walcott into the ropes and doing damage and better work on the inside. walcott did not let his hands go enough. it was a big upset. walcott took layne lightly and didnt train too hard(consider him coming in over 200lb) and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. however the fight was very close. however, walcott clearly did have an off night and its noticeable on film and I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch.

and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the post 1952 ruined layne that went on to lose a lot. the 50-52 layne was a lot better.


walcott was always inconsistent. however when walcott brought his A game, he was very tough to beat.
Walcott weighed only 2lbs less when he fought Marciano, hardly overweight when he fought Layne.

Walcott was very inconsistant, your right. You say he underestimated Layne, he also did Marciano, saying something like 'take my name out the record books if I can't beat this bum'.....maybe that means he never trained that hard for Marciano either !!!
walcott was 196lb when he fought rocky, walcott was 200lb vs layne.


walcott DID NOT UNDERESTIMATE MARCIANO, he went RIGHT AFTER MARCIANO TRYING TO TEAR HIS HEAD OFF!


u dont understimate someone if u go out trying to tear there head off. walcott hit marciano with the EXACT same left hook he knocked out charles with, but marciano was up at 3. charlie goldman once said he could not believe rocky got up from that shot. walcott once said he in utter shock when he turned around to see marciano on his feet after taking that shot. walcott thought the match was over right there and then.
You don't call someone a bum for nothing. Walcott believed it would be an easy fight and for the best part of it, Walcott was whupping him. It was cut short after Marciano landed the bomb.

A good win over an old, inconsistant fighter. Marciano liked the old fighters so much he thought he try another one and fought Moore.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 00:28
by Jaclem
...i was just reaching my prime when this thread strarted.....and now i am well past it.

john l....two is several depending on what is is.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 00:29
by Controversial
Walcott best wins years were 1945-1948 where he scored wins over top 10 fighters, Baksi, Murrey, Shepherd and Bivins. He also beat rated Lee Oma and the murderous punching Tommy Gomez. He lost close decisions to Elmer Ray, on a 48 fight (43 ko) winning run, and Maxim although he beat them both in the rematches. He then gave Louis a boxing lesson, but came away a highly disputed loser.

These were Walcotts best years..............five years before fighting Marciano. Louis, who was on the decline himself, gave Walcott a rematch and stopped Walcott. Louis then retired, he knew his career was at its end. Walcott then lost to Charles and announced his retirement but was talked into coming back. A few other wins but lost to Layne and Charles showing his inconsistency and loss of form.

Marciano fans will try and make more of Marciano opponents to try and justify Marcianos place in history. A place he deserves on the fact he was undefeated, a world champion and a credit to boxing.

He did however fight many poor opponents, which pad his record out.

Would Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc have gone 49-0 if they were about in Marcianos time.......you bet they would. Would Marciano have gone 49-0 if he was about in the 1970's.................definetley not.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 02:03
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Controversial wrote:Walcott best wins years were 1945-1948 where he scored wins over top 10 fighters, Baksi, Murrey, Shepherd and Bivins. He also beat rated Lee Oma and the murderous punching Tommy Gomez. He lost close decisions to Elmer Ray, on a 48 fight (43 ko) winning run, and Maxim although he beat them both in the rematches. He then gave Louis a boxing lesson, but came away a highly disputed loser.

These were Walcotts best years..............five years before fighting Marciano. Louis, who was on the decline himself, gave Walcott a rematch and stopped Walcott. Louis then retired, he knew his career was at its end. Walcott then lost to Charles and announced his retirement but was talked into coming back. A few other wins but lost to Layne and Charles showing his inconsistency and loss of form.

Marciano fans will try and make more of Marciano opponents to try and justify Marcianos place in history. A place he deserves on the fact he was undefeated, a world champion and a credit to boxing.

He did however fight many poor opponents, which pad his record out.

Would Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc have gone 49-0 if they were about in Marcianos time.......you bet they would. Would Marciano have gone 49-0 if he was about in the 1970's.................definetley not.

you have no clue what ur talking about


you know dipshit about jersey joe walcott. you have not studied his career in depth. you also have no idea about rocky marcianos career. you obvisoely do not know that he had virutally no amatuer experience and took up boxing late and was thrown to the wolves immediately.

- walcott losses to charles were due to charles greatness, not walcotts loss of form. you forget he BEAT ezzard charles 2x. ezzard is a far better fighter than maxim and ray who he lost to in 1946.

- walcott had just come back into boxing in after a 4 year layoff. so he wasnt in his prime in 1945, he was still rusty. also he didnt even meet FELIX BOCCHICHIO until 1945, which is the first time he had money in his pocket and he started eating good meals. so he didnt start world class training until 1946. so by the time walcott was brought into peak form, i would say 1947. anything before 1947 was not walcott at his best.





walcotts best years were 47-52 where he beat elmer ray, maxim, HOF top 10 light-H of all time harold johnson, ezzard charles 2x, joe louis(robbed), undefeated giant hein ten hoff, # 7 ranked omelio agramonte, and nearly beat rocky marciano.


1947-52 were jersey joe walcotts best years after doing much studying on him.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 02:08
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Decagon wrote:Here's how I see it: Walcott was past his prime when he fought Marciano, but he gave an excellent accouting of himself, like Charles against Marciano, Griffith against Monzon, Duran against Leonard or Ali against Frazier, Foreman and Norton.
fair enough

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 05:43
by tigerpomfret
Marciano could beat anybody you say/DON`T MAKE ME LAUGH,Too much hype about this ameturish smallish tightwad.
DON`T belive the hype,49 fights unbeaten... :lol: :lol: :lol: Harrison had 20 odd,SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marciano was a average fighter,very poor boxing wise,beat a aging old timer for the title,took 6 more contests against over the top or very average fighters,then ran away .So now we see this myth a bit more clearly,7 fights against weak opposition.
I can`t see how anyone could rate this guy in the TOP 20 heavies,not a chance,best to look pasted that so called 49 fight record and the hype following it,you be saying next the Henry Cooper could punch :lol: :lol: :oops: :oops: out a paper bag more like

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 08:50
by Crease
Right, that was some sparring match between Brockton Blockbuster and Controversial. Boys, lets just call it a draw on points, okay?

(In my opinion though, I believe that JJ Walcott was indeed in the fine shape in 1952. But I'm a big Marciano fan and I suppose I would say that anyway.

But, there's no doubt that 1952 Walcott would spark out and of today's big lumbering giants...

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 09:01
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
tigerpomfret wrote:Marciano could beat anybody you say/DON`T MAKE ME LAUGH,Too much hype about this ameturish smallish tightwad.
DON`T belive the hype,49 fights unbeaten... :lol: :lol: :lol: Harrison had 20 odd,SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marciano was a average fighter,very poor boxing wise,beat a aging old timer for the title,took 6 more contests against over the top or very average fighters,then ran away .So now we see this myth a bit more clearly,7 fights against weak opposition.
I can`t see how anyone could rate this guy in the TOP 20 heavies,not a chance,best to look pasted that so called 49 fight record and the hype following it,you be saying next the Henry Cooper could punch :lol: :lol: :oops: :oops: out a paper bag more like

troll

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 09:07
by KOJOE90
You could of course argue that any all time top ten fighter 'could' on a given night beat any of the other nine.

But wether they 'would' is of course entirely different.

In the case of Marciano? I struggle to make any case for him beating Louis and Ali.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 09:15
by Crease
Tigerpomfret you sure are expressing strong disagreement with this tread, but you're using shitty examples to back up your opinion. Thus, making yourself look like a fool...

1. "Even Harrison went 20 odd unbeaten"...
In reality, Audley Harrison went 19 unbeaten, not "20 odd".

2. "Marciano was an average fighter"...
Yes, he was so much of an average fighter that the likes of George Foreman, Joe Frazier and Larry Holmes put him in their all-time top 5. (Not to mention that Foreman and Frazier put him above Ali).

Plus, Joe Louis himself siad that Rocky hit harder than any other of his opponents.

Jack Dempsey was a big fan of Marciano, during Rocky's title reign, even Dempsey said that, he hadn't ever seen a heavyweight hit as hard...

3. "Marciano beat an aging old timer for the title"...
Yes, an aging old timer who had defeated Ezzard Charles less than a year before.

4. "Took 6 more contests against over the top OR very average fighters, then ran away"...
Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles are hardly average fighters, when they've both been inducted to the hall of fame.

Archie Moore was "the KO king" who has KO'd more professional boxers than anyone else in boxing history.

And If your saying that Don Cocknell and Roland La Starza are amateur fighters, you should re-examine their respective careers, mate.

As for running away. Rocky never once dodged a fight and all throughout his career kept the same unrelentless always-going-forward style. He never took a backward step in his career, unless you count the Walcott and Moore knock-downs.

5. "So now we see the myth a bit more clearly, 7 fights against weak opposition"...
As I said before, JJ Walcott + E Charles both hall of famers. Moore has been called, "The KO King" by boxing promoters in the past. But if you want to take a dig at La Starza and Cocknell, go ahead!
But I ask you who would he have fought instead? Rocky retired having no-one else left to beat!!!

6. "I can't see how anyone could rate this guy in the top 20 heavies"...
Well, he IS a Hall of Famer, not to mention the Ring magazine had Rocky as the *14 hardesst hitter of all time, in all weight divisons...
Plus, 99.9% of boxing fnas here at box-rec have classed Marciano in their top 10 heavyweights of all-time!!!

And this is "a small amaterish tightwad" who could knock you out in a round..any round...

Why not start up a new tread,
"Why Marciano shouldn't be ranked in the top 20 heavyweights of all time"...Then we'll see who else agrees with you!!!

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 17:35
by Controversial
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote:Walcott best wins years were 1945-1948 where he scored wins over top 10 fighters, Baksi, Murrey, Shepherd and Bivins. He also beat rated Lee Oma and the murderous punching Tommy Gomez. He lost close decisions to Elmer Ray, on a 48 fight (43 ko) winning run, and Maxim although he beat them both in the rematches. He then gave Louis a boxing lesson, but came away a highly disputed loser.

These were Walcotts best years..............five years before fighting Marciano. Louis, who was on the decline himself, gave Walcott a rematch and stopped Walcott. Louis then retired, he knew his career was at its end. Walcott then lost to Charles and announced his retirement but was talked into coming back. A few other wins but lost to Layne and Charles showing his inconsistency and loss of form.

Marciano fans will try and make more of Marciano opponents to try and justify Marcianos place in history. A place he deserves on the fact he was undefeated, a world champion and a credit to boxing.

He did however fight many poor opponents, which pad his record out.

Would Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc have gone 49-0 if they were about in Marcianos time.......you bet they would. Would Marciano have gone 49-0 if he was about in the 1970's.................definetley not.

you have no clue what ur talking about


you know dipshit about jersey joe walcott. you have not studied his career in depth. you also have no idea about rocky marcianos career. you obvisoely do not know that he had virutally no amatuer experience and took up boxing late and was thrown to the wolves immediately.

- walcott losses to charles were due to charles greatness, not walcotts loss of form. you forget he BEAT ezzard charles 2x. ezzard is a far better fighter than maxim and ray who he lost to in 1946.

- walcott had just come back into boxing in after a 4 year layoff. so he wasnt in his prime in 1945, he was still rusty. also he didnt even meet FELIX BOCCHICHIO until 1945, which is the first time he had money in his pocket and he started eating good meals. so he didnt start world class training until 1946. so by the time walcott was brought into peak form, i would say 1947. anything before 1947 was not walcott at his best.





walcotts best years were 47-52 where he beat elmer ray, maxim, HOF top 10 light-H of all time harold johnson, ezzard charles 2x, joe louis(robbed), undefeated giant hein ten hoff, # 7 ranked omelio agramonte, and nearly beat rocky marciano.


1947-52 were jersey joe walcotts best years after doing much studying on him.
I know just as much as I need to know thanks.........who made you "heavyweight historian of the world anyway"?

Funny how you include Maxim in his wins now, when before when commenting on Ezzard Charles's defences called Maxim "limited opposition" :o

Walcotts wins over Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma, Gomez, Maxim and Elmer Ray were in the years 1945-47....check his record, its pretty plain to see.

From his title challenge against Louis at the end of 1947 through to 1951 Walcott had 11 fights winning 6 and losing 5. And you think he was still in his prime then?

His 5 wins were over Tandberg, Johnson, Agromonte, Shkor, Hoff and a tired Charles. Apart from Charles the others were nowhere near the quality he beat in 1945-47.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 17:57
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
His 5 wins were over Tandberg, Johnson, Agromonte, Shkor, Hoff and a tired Charles. Apart from Charles the others were nowhere near the quality he beat in 1945-47.

ur saying HALL OF FAMER HAROLD JOHNSON wasnt better than those guys?harold johnson was much better than those guys he beat 45-48


that so called "tired" ezzard charles you are talking about is still far better than anyone he beat in 45-48. AND walcott beat charles in 1951! meaning walcott was a better fighter then.




walcotts best years were 1947-52


A. HE WON THE TITLE- he never won the title in 45-48. he did however win the title in 51

B. outside of layne loss, he only lost to ATG's louis, charles, marciano in 47-52. in 45-46, he lost to elmer ray and joey maxim

C. on film walcott's best years are 47-52. are u denying this?

d. walcott beat ezzard charles, joe louis, harold johnson in 47-52. those wins are better than anyone he ever beat in 45-46.



1947-52 = a prime jersey joe walcott

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 18:19
by Controversial
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
His 5 wins were over Tandberg, Johnson, Agromonte, Shkor, Hoff and a tired Charles. Apart from Charles the others were nowhere near the quality he beat in 1945-47.

ur saying HALL OF FAMER HAROLD JOHNSON wasnt better than those guys?harold johnson was much better than those guys he beat 45-48


that so called "tired" ezzard charles you are talking about is still far better than anyone he beat in 45-48. AND walcott beat charles in 1951! meaning walcott was a better fighter then.




walcotts best years were 1947-52


A. HE WON THE TITLE- he never won the title in 45-48. he did however win the title in 51

B. outside of layne loss, he only lost to ATG's louis, charles, marciano in 47-52. in 45-46, he lost to elmer ray and joey maxim

C. on film walcott's best years are 47-52. are u denying this?

d. walcott beat ezzard charles, joe louis, harold johnson in 47-52. those wins are better than anyone he ever beat in 45-46.



1947-52 = a prime jersey joe walcott
As I said before, which you seem to completely ignore......Walcotts wins over Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma, Gomez, Maxim and Elmer Ray were in the years 1945-47....check his record, its pretty plain to see.

In case you missed that 1945-1947 not 1952

From his title challenge against Louis at the end of 1947 through to 1951 Walcott had 11 fights winning 6 and losing 5. And you think he was still in his prime then?

His defeat against Louis, was harsh but Louis wasn't the fighter he once was but still was good enough to KO Walcott in the rematch.

And for the record his win over Johnson was due to Johnson damaging his back, his disc I think, which hardly counts as a great win.

And also for the record his points win over Charles was thought by many ringsiders to be lucky as many thought Charles should have got the verdict. The judges disageed but many others didn't

If you think wins over Tandberg, Johnson, Agromonte, Shkor, Hoff are better than wins 5 years before over Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma, Gomez, Maxim and Elmer Ray, you need to rethink your argument.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 19:15
by Controversial
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote:Walcott best wins years were 1945-1948 where he scored wins over top 10 fighters, Baksi, Murrey, Shepherd and Bivins. He also beat rated Lee Oma and the murderous punching Tommy Gomez. He lost close decisions to Elmer Ray, on a 48 fight (43 ko) winning run, and Maxim although he beat them both in the rematches. He then gave Louis a boxing lesson, but came away a highly disputed loser.

These were Walcotts best years..............five years before fighting Marciano. Louis, who was on the decline himself, gave Walcott a rematch and stopped Walcott. Louis then retired, he knew his career was at its end. Walcott then lost to Charles and announced his retirement but was talked into coming back. A few other wins but lost to Layne and Charles showing his inconsistency and loss of form.

Marciano fans will try and make more of Marciano opponents to try and justify Marcianos place in history. A place he deserves on the fact he was undefeated, a world champion and a credit to boxing.

He did however fight many poor opponents, which pad his record out.

Would Frazier, Foreman, Holmes etc have gone 49-0 if they were about in Marcianos time.......you bet they would. Would Marciano have gone 49-0 if he was about in the 1970's.................definetley not.

you have no clue what ur talking about

you also have no idea about rocky marcianos career. you obvisoely do not know that he had virutally no amatuer experience and took up boxing late and was thrown to the wolves immediately.
What difference does it make how much amateur experience Marciano had? His style of fighting wasn't the sort that would have made for a glittering amateur career anyway.

Larry Holmes only had something like 22 amatuer fights, losing 3.

Audley Harrison was a gold medal winner, but couldn't fight his way out of a paperbag.........your point has no point.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 19:58
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
And for the record his win over Johnson was due to Johnson damaging his back, his disc I think, which hardly counts as a great win.


ur wrong,



ive read other fight reportss. walcott knocked johnson down in the 2nd and was dominating him and had johnson out on his feet in the 3rd before johnson collasped hurting his back.


i say thats a legite victory






yes many of those top avoided black contenders of the 1940s that walcott beat were very good fighters. i have done a lot of studying on them.


however walcott was not in his prime in 45-46. he was near it but not there yet. he hadnt spent enough time with felix bocchichio yet. in 45-46 he lost to joey maxim, elmer ray and fight 10 even rounds with jimmy bivins. walcott had just begun getting world class training in 1946 and had just started with felix boccicchio. walcott defintley was not in his prime in 1945.

in 1944, walcott lost to a 8-12 fighter! theres no way walcott was in his prime in 1945, he was still too rusty and had not started getting world class training yet.


theres no way a 45-46 walcott could beat ezzard charles like a 51 walcott could.




a 1947-52 walcott= world class training, great management with felix bocchichio, better nutrition


45-46 walcott = still rusty, not yet world class trained



controversial,


what based on FILM tells u walcott was past his prime vs marciano?

was he slower? did he look out of shape? was his reflexes slower? was he less aaggresive? did he have less stamina?






are u saying walcott was a better fighter when he lost to elmer ray and joey maxim than the night he lost to marciano?

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 20:33
by Controversial
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
And for the record his win over Johnson was due to Johnson damaging his back, his disc I think, which hardly counts as a great win.


ur wrong,



ive read other fight reportss. walcott knocked johnson down in the 2nd and was dominating him and had johnson out on his feet in the 3rd before johnson collasped hurting his back.


i say thats a legite victory






yes many of those top avoided black contenders of the 1940s that walcott beat were very good fighters. i have done a lot of studying on them.


however walcott was not in his prime in 45-46. he was near it but not there yet. he hadnt spent enough time with felix bocchichio yet. in 45-46 he lost to joey maxim, elmer ray and fight 10 even rounds with jimmy bivins. walcott had just begun getting world class training in 1946 and had just started with felix boccicchio. walcott defintley was not in his prime in 1945.

in 1944, walcott lost to a 8-12 fighter! theres no way walcott was in his prime in 1945, he was still too rusty and had not started getting world class training yet.


theres no way a 45-46 walcott could beat ezzard charles like a 51 walcott could.




a 1947-52 walcott= world class training, great management with felix bocchichio, better nutrition


45-46 walcott = still rusty, not yet world class trained



controversial,


what based on FILM tells u walcott was past his prime vs marciano?

was he slower? did he look out of shape? was his reflexes slower? was he less aaggresive? did he have less stamina?






are u saying walcott was a better fighter when he lost to elmer ray and joey maxim than the night he lost to marciano?

You are too blinkered in your opinions to see the facts.

Here is Walcotts records from 1945-1953

***1953***
1953-05-15 Rocky Marciano Chicago, IL, USA L KO 1

***1952***
1952-09-23 Rocky Marciano Philadelphia, PA, USA L KO 13
1952-06-05 Ezzard Charles Philadelphia, PA, USA W UD 15

***1951***
1951-07-18 Ezzard Charles Pittsburgh, PA, USA W KO 7
1951-03-07 Ezzard Charles Detroit, MI, USA L UD 15

***1950***
1950-11-24 Rex Layne New York, NY, USA L UD 10
1950-05-28 Hein ten Hoff Mannheim, Germany W PTS 10
1950-03-13 Johnny Shkor Philadelphia, PA, USA W KO 1
1950-03-03 Omelio Agramonte New York, NY, USA W TKO 7
1950-02-08 Harold Johnson Philadelphia, PA, USA W KO 3

***1949***
1949-08-14 Olle Tandberg Stockholm, Sweden W TKO 5
1949-06-22 Ezzard Charles Chicago, IL, USA L UD 15

***1948***
Vacant National Boxing Association World Heavyweight Title
1948-06-25 Joe Louis Bronx, NY, USA L KO 11

***1947***
1947-12-05 Joe Louis New York, NY, USA L SD 15
1947-06-23 Joey Maxim Los Angeles, CA, USA W SD 10
1947-03-01 Elmer Ray Miami, FL, USA W MD 10
1947-01-06 Joey Maxim Philadelphia, PA, USA W MD 10

***1946***
1946-11-15 Elmer Ray New York, NY, USA L SD 10
1946-08-28 Joey Maxim Camden, NJ, USA L PTS 10
1946-08-16 Tommy Gomez New York, NY, USA W TKO 3
1946-05-24 Lee Oma New York, NY, USA W UD 10
1946-03-20 Al Blake Camden, NJ, USA W TKO 4
1946-02-25 Jimmy Bivins Cleveland, OH, USA W SD 10
1946-01-30 Johnny Allen Camden, NJ, USA W KO 3

***1945***
1945-12-10 Curtis Sheppard Baltimore, MD, USA W KO 10
1945-11-12 Lee Q Murray Baltimore, MD, USA W DQ 9
1945-10-23 Steve Dudas Paterson, NJ, USA W TKO 5
1945-09-20 Johnny Denson Camden, NJ, USA W KO 2
1945-08-02 Joe Baksi Camden, NJ, USA W PTS 10
1945-03-15 Johnny Allen Camden, NJ, USA W PTS 8
1945-02-22 Austin Johnson Camden, NJ, USA W PTS 6
1945-01-25 Johnny Allen Camden, NJ, USA L PTS 8
1945-01-11 Jackie Saunders Camden, NJ, USA W TKO 2

He started training seriously sometime in 1945.

In 1945 he had 9 fights winning 8 and avenging the lone defeat to Allen. He beat Baksi, Murray and Shepherd.

In 1946 he had 7 fights, the 2 defeats were very close and disputed by many. These were to Maxim and Elmer Ray who was on a 48 fight (43ko) winning streak with a 17 fight KO run. His wins were over Bivins, Oma, Gomez and another win over Allen who beat him in 1945, this time on a stoppage.

In 1947 he had 4 fights, winning 3. He beat Maxim twice and Elmer Ray, avenging the defeats in the previous year. The only loss was a disputed decision to Louis.

In 1948 he had 1 fight, a stoppage loss to the past it Louis (Louis promptly retired)

In 1949 he had 2 fights, a wide decision loss to Charles and a win over Tandberg.

In 1950 he had 5 fights, 4 wins then a points defeat to Layne.

In 1951 he had 2 fights, a wide decision loss to Charles then he beat Charles after an exhaustive run a fights for the champ, 6 in 8 months (80 rounds of fighting)

in 1952 he had 2 fights, a close win over Charles then his loss to Marciano.

In 1953 he had 1 fight, a loss to Marciano then he retired.

Its quite obvious he best years were 1945-1947 where he had 20 fights, losing 4, 3 which were avenged and the other a disputed loss to Louis.

From 1948-1951 he had 10 fights, losing 4, 3 by unanimous decision a 1 by KO.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 22:37
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
no way the walcott of 45-46 beats ezzard charles.


ezzard charles was by far better than anyone he faced in 1945-46 and a 1951-52 walcott BEAT charles!


once again, the elmer ray loss was not disputed. new york times scored it for elmer ray. was elmer ray in the class of ezzard charles or rocky marciano? answer me please



are u implying a 1946 walcott beats ezzard charles and rocky marciano?

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 22:38
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
we can only go by whats on film,


and walcotts best fights on film are louis I, marciano I and charles III


did walcott look over the hill in these fights? HELL NO

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 22:50
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
you have to realize walcott didnt start getting world class training till 1946. he didnt shake off his rustiness till this time either. by the time felix boccichio got walcott into peak form, it was 1947 vs louis.


im going to leave it at...........watching the film of walcott-charles III and walcott-marciano I and reading the fight reports, there is plenty of reason to believe walcott was at his best form.

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 23:47
by thunderfromdownunder
[quote="BrocktonBlockbuster49- i think ali, jack johnson, joe louis, george foreman beat rocky [/quote]

intresting you pick jack johson to beat rocky, why do you think?

Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 23:54
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
thunderfromdownunder wrote:[quote="BrocktonBlockbuster49- i think ali, jack johnson, joe louis, george foreman beat rocky
intresting you pick jack johson to beat rocky, why do you think?[/quote]

johnson was one of the best infighters i have ever seen. when rocky misses which he does quite often, johnson will be countering rocky all over the block. rocky threw a very high volume of punches, but johnson had the speed to counter and the power to make rock feel it. johnson also had a wicked uppercut which marciano at time was sucepibtle too. marciano as strong as he is will not be able to rough up johnson in the clinches as johnson is extremely strong. walcott did a number on marciano on the inside counterpunching and i think a better defensive johnson will do a lot as well. however i do give rocky a suzie Q punchers chance as johnsons chin was dentable.

johnson 15 unanimous rocky

Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 00:04
by thunderfromdownunder
[quote="IrishRufusMurphy"]
Figure it this way. Frazier beat Ali the first time, lost the second time, and if he went into the final round against Ali in the third fight, he would have dropped Ali for the count.quote]

i highly doubt that one mate, frazier was fighting blind for the last two or so rounds of the fight, if youve seen the fight (which i assume you have) you will know that frazier took a tremondous beating in that last round, he had nothing left he was not gonna win that fight.

Frazier is better than Marciano IMO. thay are both however very likeable people.
i think frazier is better because although he and rocky had very similar styles fraziers punches seemed a lot quicker that rockys, they may not have been as hard, but thay were not as quick

Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 02:03
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
i think frazier is better because although he and rocky had very similar styles fraziers punches seemed a lot quicker that rockys, they may not have been as hard, but thay were not as quick

yea but marciano had two fisted KO power. frazier soely relied on his left hook. thats why i favor marciano.

Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 02:49
by surf-bat
Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
His 5 wins were over Tandberg, Johnson, Agromonte, Shkor, Hoff and a tired Charles. Apart from Charles the others were nowhere near the quality he beat in 1945-47.

ur saying HALL OF FAMER HAROLD JOHNSON wasnt better than those guys?harold johnson was much better than those guys he beat 45-48


that so called "tired" ezzard charles you are talking about is still far better than anyone he beat in 45-48. AND walcott beat charles in 1951! meaning walcott was a better fighter then.




walcotts best years were 1947-52


A. HE WON THE TITLE- he never won the title in 45-48. he did however win the title in 51

B. outside of layne loss, he only lost to ATG's louis, charles, marciano in 47-52. in 45-46, he lost to elmer ray and joey maxim

C. on film walcott's best years are 47-52. are u denying this?

d. walcott beat ezzard charles, joe louis, harold johnson in 47-52. those wins are better than anyone he ever beat in 45-46.



1947-52 = a prime jersey joe walcott
As I said before, which you seem to completely ignore......


You'll have to forgive him. "Ignoring" facts is something he does a lot of when it does damage to his arguement(see LaMotta vs. Cerdan). You can show him a ton of evidence and he'll bury his head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend like it doesn't exist. Hell, you can even show him FILM that discredits his notions and he'll still fight on(again, see Lamotta/Cerdan).

So fight on BB....fight on....