Henry Armstrong vs Barbados Joe Walcott

[BoxBuzz]

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.

On occasion this may have proven to be true....that show "are you as smart as a fifth grader"? has many of us self proclaimed intellectual giants on the run. But perhaps none to such a frantic pace as yourself.

Height is certainly an important issue to have correct...and thankfully we have kovit and silkov at the ready to give us state of the art specs and stats when one of us falter. Decagon indeed may have had this wrong on this occasion.

However I can not find how that has anything at all to do with my earlier statements. And so sadly I must find you vacant in both mind and perhaps spirit. I now must assume that you are suffering the dreadful affects of Lou Gehrigs or perhaps Alzheimers and for this I will now withdraw any and all critical statements toward you and simply say I wish you well. The fact that you can find your keyboard and remember your moniker and password are acts of heroism and are to be admired.

grampsberry, when I reach the age of 112 I can only hope to have as feisty an attitude and engaging personality as you show here! You are the benchmark for what is known as that "fighting spirit" I often refer to, and I salute you!

Now I am going back to reading the posts by those who have something to say about Barbados Joe, a subject I find interesting and errantly gravitated from once before in this threads history. An error I shall not repeat henceforth.

[granberry]

Buzz, the boxing "expert" is dependent on kovit and silkov for the basic information on a fighter who won and lost his titles before the year 1900.

Buzz, you don't have a clue who Barbados Joe Walcott is

and you never will.

Isn't it about time for your alter ego Collins to show and post his/her girlish attempts at insults?

I notice that neither of you ever post a single word that has to do with boxing.

[barry]

Walcott did not beat any great heavyweights, but he did beat great, or bordering on great light heavyweights, and he competed with good heavyweights, which in that era there was not much difference between light heavy and heavy. Before anyone screams about Choynski not being valid...lets remember that he knocked out Jack Johnson..a primo heavyweighta year after Walcott destroyed him. Walcott lost on points in 15 and then avenged it beating Sandy Ferguson in ten rounds, which Ferguson was not a great heavyweight, but he was not a bad heavyweight either! Actually, he was a top ten heavyweight and a large heavyweight at that, which small Joe Walcott gave him as good as he got! Black Bill was a good, solid heavyweight also and though Walcott did not win, he went the route with him. Fred Russell, the monster heavyweight that Walcott drew with, well a poor record, but he did manage to beat a couple of good heavyweights.

But its the light heavyweights that Walcott fought, which stand out. Kid Carter, one of the very best light heavyweights of the era...well Walcott handled him. George Gardner, who beat top heavyweights of the era like Marvin Hart, Peter Maher and he did very well against Jack Root and Walcott lost in 20 against Gardner and then avenged it by winning in 20. Philly Jack O'Brien won a ND bout over Walcott in Philly and then drew with him in 10, but O'Brien would not fight Walcott in a distance bout of 20, or more rounds. Walcott owned middleweight Dan Creedon, a tough, top rated middleweight. Plain a simple, Walcott had the height of a flyweight yet he competed with and beat men as big as heavyweights.

Peter McNeeley was a can, but could anyone actually imagine someone like Naseem Hamed beating him...but then again Hamed was 5' 3". Or could anyone actually see Buddy McGirt, or Shane Mosley beating McNeeley while weighing less than 147? It's a likely possibility, but then again none of those guys were 5' 1". No, Walcott was a very special fighter who was able to compete against men much larger than he.

Walcott challenged the likes of Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey, but the bouts were never pulled off, which was most likely very fortunate for Walcott as Jeffries would probably have hurt him, but a bout with Sharkey would have been interesting. Anyone who doesn't know much about the career of Walcott then I would suggest that you really look into it and research all that you can about him as he was not only one of the greatest fighters of all-time, but his life was very, very interesting as well.

[silkov]

Another fighter of that time who really interests me is Dixie Kid... for you information Gran I have it on good authority that Walcott stood at about 5 feet 6 when he was wearing high heels... so in a way Dec is correct when he says that Walcott and Armstrong were the same height... 8)

[BoxBuzz]

Had to run a sim on these two .....Jack Dempsey MW vs Joe Walcott WW. barry might be the only one who would not be surprised by the outcome. I was not expecting it....and based on some of my recent reading both here and elsewhere It no longer stretches my imagination.

I think I would still bet the other way in this case.


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

[granberry]

There is a photo of Dixie Kid and Walcott posing before a fight in San Francisco.

Dixie Kid was a strongly built welterweight, but Walcott is so massively built that his upper arms and forearms are the size of the Dixie Kid's thighs.

Walcott had the most massive build of any great fighter.

There is also a photo of the Dixie Kid thirty years later, posing sitting on a table next to then young fighter Young Jack Thompson.

You can see in the later photo what a great physical specimen the Dixie Kid was even in middle age, how he fills up his sweater and his trim stomach.

There IS a film of Walcott, taken long after he was finished fighting, sitting and talking about his career while he was working as a janitor at Madison Square Garden. He has a Irish(?) New England(?) accent maybe gotten from being around his manager, Tom O'Rourke.

The film I have has several takes, including a couple where he flubs his words--and then tries again.

No film of him fighting---only still photos posing with opponents before a fight. Or posing in a studio.

[barry]

Dixie Kid was an interesting character who would be a great subject for a biography. His years following boxing were hindered by heroin addiction, but there has never been that much written about his career and life out of the ring, but he would be one of the more interesting fighters for someone to take up.


Walcott versus The Nonpareil...close bout which would actually be a pick 'em fight, but due to his punch I would lean toward Walcott as he handled middleweights as easily as he did lightweights. At his best it took an extremely physical fighter to beat Walcott...examples...Mysterious Billy Smith, George "Kid" Lavigne and Tommy West...all three were as physical as it got when the bell rang to start a fight...especially Lavigne and Smith.

Walcott was always very nervous whenever he fought Smith. Smith had told Walcott that if he got in close enough that he would bite Walcott's ear's off, which being as dirty as Smith was one had to take such claims serious, which all the DQ losses in Smith's record will testify to what a rough and tumble brawler he was. Lavigne, well he was as rough and tough as anyone who ever stepped through the ropes, but he had excellent skill to complement his rough and toughness whereas Smith was just an ugly, rough and tough fighter who in reality did not really care whether he won, or lost as he was interested in causing as much damage to his opponent as humanely possible, though he was not without skill at all, he just preferred a brawl to a boxing exhibition!.

I would love to see the likes of a Pernell Whitaker going 25 rounds with Lavigne. Overall I rate Whitaker higher than Lavigne at lightweight, but in a head-to-head match-up over 20 rounds…Whitaker takes a beating.

I hear some people who think that modern boxers are far superior to the old timers and that they would, pretty much, just box the ears off of the old guys, which I have always found the claim to be rather silly and very, very unfounded. I could see Pernell Whitaker boxing the ears off of George Lavigne for 12 , or 13 of 25 rounds, but the next 12, or 13 rounds would be bad news as Lavigne just beats the hell out of Whitaker, who would be very lucky to survive to the final bell, but I guarantee that Lavigne would be there at the end!