BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:The wizard, the innovator? :) What he do that Tunney didn't do before him?

Walcott did beat Charles, but he also lost to Charles; he went 2-2. Louis was past it by the time Walcott fought him; he also got ko'd in the rematch by Louis. Walcott also lost several fights to mediocre opponents. Tunney also beat Weinert, Wiggins,Renault, Risko, and Heeney.

You got to realize... that alot of the time, Walcott was being ducked by alot of men... because of this, he had to live strictly off the money he earned as a GARBAGE MAN.... he had kids and a wife to feed... and to put it short, he was living an existence much like Jim Braddock was during the Depression...

Walcott often fought hurt, or was undersized, or was starving... most times he had no information on who he was fighting and even at that was given peanuts... wasnt until he shocked the world in the Louis fight (he was robbed) did he truly receive any validation as a boxer--- because prior to that he was thought of as a bum--- mainly because nobody really knew who he was, or what he could do--- because he fought sporadically. But those who did know him, knew he wasnt going to be some "Bum of The Month" and that he was special.

So, in my view... if he lost to bums... its because of those reasons... because the Walcott who fought Louis and Charles and Marciano (until he was caught by that hook) was quite possibly the greatest scientific boxer (heavyweight) of the first half of the 20th century. Walcott, on skill alone, is one of the all-time greats.

Walcott did have an odd career which makes him hard to judge. I am willing to throw out the early part of his career.
How much does the first Louis fight really mean? It has to count for something, but this wasn't the prime Joe Louis by any means. He also got ko'd by the past his best Louis in the rematch.

He did go 2-2 vs Charles, which is pretty good. Tunney could have gone at least 2-2 vs Charles as well.
He fought a really good fight in the first Marciano fight and deserves credit for that. However, he deserves to be ripped for whatever he was doing in the 2nd Marciano fight.

During this time, he also lost to Rex Layne. For a great fighter, that is embarrassing. Tunney certainly would have beaten Layne.

Walcott was fast on his feet, so was Tunney. Walcott did land the occasional big left hook, but he wasn't a good finisher. Tunney was better defensively. There are only about 15 fighters I would pick to beat Walcott over half the time; Tunney just happens to be one of them.

Alp, I suspect Tunney would win as well, but "dull"? I don't think so.

Your opinion of JJW and a hypothetical event with Gene is unacceptable.

Which is why a gave you nearly a decade to get it right.

Your new spin appears to set the record straight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott did have an odd career which makes him hard to judge. I am willing to throw out the early part of his career.
How much does the first Louis fight really mean? It has to count for something, but this wasn't the prime Joe Louis by any means. He also got ko'd by the past his best Louis in the rematch.

He did go 2-2 vs Charles, which is pretty good. Tunney could have gone at least 2-2 vs Charles as well.
He fought a really good fight in the first Marciano fight and deserves credit for that. However, he deserves to be ripped for whatever he was doing in the 2nd Marciano fight.

During this time, he also lost to Rex Layne. For a great fighter, that is embarrassing. Tunney certainly would have beaten Layne.

Walcott was fast on his feet, so was Tunney. Walcott did land the occasional big left hook, but he wasn't a good finisher. Tunney was better defensively. There are only about 15 fighters I would pick to beat Walcott over half the time; Tunney just happens to be one of them.

Walcott's 2nd win over Charles was a bad decision...worse than Louis over Jersey Joe in their first fight.

But I love watching Walcott. He was an excellent fighter.

He was an excellent fighter. Also admire his coming back after he had not been very successful early in his career.

BoxBuzz wrote:Alp, I suspect Tunney would win as well, but "dull"? I don't think so.

Your opinion of JJW and a hypothetical event with Gene is unacceptable.

Which is why a gave you nearly a decade to get it right.

Your new spin appears to set the record straight.

I'm trying to imagine this fight, and I keep think of two guys doing a lot circling, waiting for rare openings. It would probably be a chess match, which occasionally can be interesting but usually not. I hate the phrase "styles make fights", but with their styles it is unlikely that there would be a lot of fireworks.

I'd pick Tunney to win a decision by 5 or 6 points. I think Walcott's only real advantage is in power, but I can't see him KOing The Fighting Marine if Dempsey couldn't. Tunney was too smart and patient for Jersey. Tunney would have him figured, by the middle rounds, much like Mayweather figured out Maidana.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott did have an odd career which makes him hard to judge. I am willing to throw out the early part of his career.
How much does the first Louis fight really mean? It has to count for something, but this wasn't the prime Joe Louis by any means. He also got ko'd by the past his best Louis in the rematch.

He did go 2-2 vs Charles, which is pretty good. Tunney could have gone at least 2-2 vs Charles as well.
He fought a really good fight in the first Marciano fight and deserves credit for that. However, he deserves to be ripped for whatever he was doing in the 2nd Marciano fight.

During this time, he also lost to Rex Layne. For a great fighter, that is embarrassing. Tunney certainly would have beaten Layne.

Walcott was fast on his feet, so was Tunney. Walcott did land the occasional big left hook, but he wasn't a good finisher. Tunney was better defensively. There are only about 15 fighters I would pick to beat Walcott over half the time; Tunney just happens to be one of them.

Walcott's 2nd win over Charles was a bad decision...worse than Louis over Jersey Joe in their first fight.

But I love watching Walcott. He was an excellent fighter.

He was great fighter but decision 2nd Win is not worse than Walcott vs Louis , this is more worse decision!!!

JJW would be a special in my book to beat Tunney any day any time Joe by un dec in a shutout.

Tunney UD. He's a bit more active and consistent in the ring.

pound per pound wrote:Tunney UD. He's a bit more active and consistent in the ring.

Walcott.

J-C wrote:

tiredoldngrey wrote:Tunney; sharper puncher, and his movement would give Walcott trouble. Also he could take Walcotts power and go on Tunney by UD 15

Walcott beat a supreame boxer twice in Ezzard Charles

Charles easily outboxed Walcott in their first 2 fights... but in their last 2 fights he started suffering the initial inroads of ALS, the creeping and debilitating nerve disease that effects Stephan Hawking and that took Ezzard Charles life eventually. After many years it renders you completely immobile and it can finish you in a few years or much more slowly... It's also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease... Charles's doctors kept telling him he was tired and over-trained, and needed rest - but after he could no longer hold a fork he was finally diagnosed properly by a specialist.

Joe Walcott's record is listed as 51-18-2.. Gene Tunney's record is listed as 65-1-1.. but when I was a kid it was listed as 82-1.. Boxrec has a special designation for "newspaper" decisions now and have 17 bouts listed in that category. They've periodically changed Tunney's record.

"Two intellegent master Boxers"

With a record of 51-18-2 Walcott was no master... I think a prime Ezzard Charles would be a much better matchup... Charles beat Archie Moore 3 times without a loss and easily beat Walcott in their first 2 fights... Obviously Charles wasn't the same boxer near the end of his career.

Jersey Joe was intellegent boxer!
Unfortunately had a difficult life situation and often accepted the fights for money without proper training!
Some accuse him 18 defeats and do not know the whole story! At the same time is not observed in other equally have many defeats!

I agree all defeats and victories can look career assessment but obviously this one does not work for everyone .

Ezzard wrote:Walcott's 2nd win over Charles was a bad decision...worse than Louis over Jersey Joe in their first fight.

Have you watched the Louis vs Walcott 1 but? I've never watched it (I can't find full footage anywhere) but from the fight reports that I have read, most of the sport writers' of the day believed that Walcott won the fight, but it was close.

I know that Gene was super-fit (with his marine background) - but I look at this fight & I believe that Jersey Joe would be too effective to lose.

His slick style would prove problematic for Gene, whose finest victories were against slam-bang, come-forward fighters like Dempsey & Greb.

JJ was very accurate with his shots, I could see him stopping Gene in the very late rounds.

walcottttttt

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott did have an odd career which makes him hard to judge. I am willing to throw out the early part of his career.

Yeah, it has puzzled me as well, how such good boxer could lose so many bouts against lesser opponents.

To be honest, the more I research it, the more I am convinced that there was not any single, lone reason why he was so inconsistent...
But rather a combination factors as highlighted above by others.

I think Gene Tunney would beat Walcott with better timing and a steadier pace. I could see Walcott stunning Tunney at times or even dropping him with those sneaky shots he would do, but Tunney was a clever fight you'd only catch him with one of those sneaky punches once if at all. I think Tunney would get the better of most of the rounds and box his way to a Unanimous Decision.

Something like 9 rounds to 6 or 10 rounds to 5.

This just in.......

Tunney Beat Greb...on more than one occasion.

A feat that typically can only be accomplished in an alternate reality...

So...what chance does Walcott really have?