BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Who invented the jab?

It's been a component of fist-fighting since caveman walked upright . . .

And your evidence is......

Ok, if you want to get technical there are demonstrations of left jabs in boxing manuals from the 18th century, but I have no doubt the basic jab punch has been in use by prizefighters since ancient times, i mean it's the basic punch one can use to strike and keep a safe distance from their opponent at the same time, it's analogus to the lead 'thrust' in sword-fighting. I just always never understood how people thought in terms of fighting all people knew how to do for thousands of years was just wild swinging, and then suddenly a guy comes along with the nickname of Gentleman and BAM, suddenly people realize you can use lateral movement and throw jabs

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

Your comparing him to a man who only lost once in his career which was avenged on numerous occasions! One of a select band of boxers in history who have beaten EVERY opponent they have ever faced......

Just think that over for a while will you b4 telling everyone your a keyboard historian - Mr i know more than you coz i've had drinks with Bert Sugar!

If you still think a man whos lost 18 times (did i mention that?) still a better resume at heavyweight then you just sit still, i'll get you some jelly & ice-cream & we can wait for the nice men in white coats to collect you

The vast majority of his record is at light HW . . .according to your logic if Michael Spinks had retired after beating Cooney, he should've been rated above Ali

Tunney is higher on a lb for lb list; at heavyweight he is below Jersey Joe.

Look at Walcott's best 5 wins, then look at Dempseys.

Crease wrote:Look at Walcott's best 5 wins, then look at Dempseys.

Who brought Dempsey into this? lol

dempseyfire wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

Your comparing him to a man who only lost once in his career which was avenged on numerous occasions! One of a select band of boxers in history who have beaten EVERY opponent they have ever faced......

Just think that over for a while will you b4 telling everyone your a keyboard historian - Mr i know more than you coz i've had drinks with Bert Sugar!

If you still think a man whos lost 18 times (did i mention that?) still a better resume at heavyweight then you just sit still, i'll get you some jelly & ice-cream & we can wait for the nice men in white coats to collect you

The vast majority of his record is at light HW . . .according to your logic if Michael Spinks had retired after beating Cooney, he should've been rated above Ali

Tunney is higher on a lb for lb list; at heavyweight he is below Jersey Joe.

Right, lets look at a few facts.

Tunney
Middleweight from 1915-18 (3 yrs)
Light Heavyweight 1918-22 (4 yrs)
Heavyweight 1922-28 (6 yrs)

So lets dispel this myth once & for all seen as he fought the longest part of his career as a heavyweight - this kinda backs up my theory that he archiveved more at heavyweight than Walcott doesn't it?

Infact he didn't ever lose as a heavyweight!

You people stop swimming against the tide will you & open your eyes

After all - there is no shame in being wrong - theres a right & wrong in every debate.

It just happens that that i'm right it this one.

Kilsby wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

Your comparing him to a man who only lost once in his career which was avenged on numerous occasions! One of a select band of boxers in history who have beaten EVERY opponent they have ever faced......

Just think that over for a while will you b4 telling everyone your a keyboard historian - Mr i know more than you coz i've had drinks with Bert Sugar!

If you still think a man whos lost 18 times (did i mention that?) still a better resume at heavyweight then you just sit still, i'll get you some jelly & ice-cream & we can wait for the nice men in white coats to collect you

The vast majority of his record is at light HW . . .according to your logic if Michael Spinks had retired after beating Cooney, he should've been rated above Ali

Tunney is higher on a lb for lb list; at heavyweight he is below Jersey Joe.

Right, lets look at a few facts.

Tunney
Middleweight from 1915-18 (3 yrs)
Light Heavyweight 1918-22 (4 yrs)
Heavyweight 1922-28 (6 yrs)

So lets dispel this myth once & for all seen as he fought the longest part of his career as a heavyweight - this kinda backs up my theory that he archiveved more at heavyweight than Walcott doesn't it?

Infact he didn't ever lose as a heavyweight!

You people stop swimming against the tide will you & open your eyes

^^^^
I'd just like to say Tunney made his debut as a heavyweight in 1922 but fought in & out of the division b4 moving permantly to the division in 1924

Sorry for the confusion

And from our very own boxrec:-

Ranking
• Boxing Historian Tracy Callis rated Tunney as the 6th best-ever at heavyweight, 4th at cruiserweight, and 1st at light-heavyweight.
• Boxing Historian Monte Cox rated him 2nd at Light-heavyweight.
• The IBRO ranked Tunney the #11 Heavyweight and #4 Light-heavyweight.
• Nat Fleischer placed Tunney as the 8th-best Heavyweight ever.
• Charley Rose put Tunney 6th at Heavyweight.
• A World Boxing magazine readers poll conducted in 1974 voted Tunney the #7 Heavyweight. • Nat Loubet put Tunney 6th at Heavyweight.
• Both John Durant and Bill Brennan consider Tunney 5th at Heavyweight.
• Bert Sugar has Tunney 5th at Heavyweight.
• Arthur Harris considers Tunney to be 5th-best at Heavyweight.

^^^^
I guess all these people must have Walcott a notch above Tunney in all these rankings also!

Kilsby wrote:

Kilsby wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: The vast majority of his record is at light HW . . .according to your logic if Michael Spinks had retired after beating Cooney, he should've been rated above Ali

Tunney is higher on a lb for lb list; at heavyweight he is below Jersey Joe.

Right, lets look at a few facts.

Tunney
Middleweight from 1915-18 (3 yrs)
Light Heavyweight 1918-22 (4 yrs)
Heavyweight 1922-28 (6 yrs)

So lets dispel this myth once & for all seen as he fought the longest part of his career as a heavyweight - this kinda backs up my theory that he archiveved more at heavyweight than Walcott doesn't it?

Infact he didn't ever lose as a heavyweight!

You people stop swimming against the tide will you & open your eyes

^^^^
I'd just like to say Tunney made his debut as a heavyweight in 1922 but fought in & out of the division b4 moving permantly to the division in 1924

Sorry for the confusion

You don't seem to understand how boxing worked back then. Tunney did not 'permanently move' to the HW division in 1924 . . light heavyweights regularly weighed over 175 for non-title bouts . .that didn't mean they were suddenly "in the HW division" . .just b/c Tunney weighed 178 vs a 166 lb Jeff Smith didn't make that a heavyweight fight.

Tunney's best Ws vs heavyweights:

Dempsey (2x), yet Dempsey past his best
Tom Heeney
Johnny Risko
Charley Weinert

Walcott's best Ws:
Joe Louis (1st fight . . .acepted robbery)
Ezzard Charles (2x)
Jimmy Bivins
Elmer Ray
Joe Baski
Lee Q Murray

(plus Curtis Sheppard, Lee Oma, Tommy Gomez)

Walcott's robbed W vs Louis is at least on par with Gene's W over Dempsey, plus Joe was many more quality Ws over quality big men.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ali, Louis, Holmes, Holyfield, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Wills, Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson, Walcott, Marciano, Liston, Tyson

All of them all-time greats to me.

Kilsby wrote:Saad.... i don't care if you write for the daily planet & are superman.

Tunney is FAR better than Walcott.... its not even a debate - sorry

Maybe the jibe about Tunney inventing scientific boxing is a tad far - i'd say it was Joe Gans but for Big men (the heavys) Tunney was the first to adopt a jab & move - before him the big guys were just strongmen or sluggers - he brough finesse.

I thought you were done?

And no, it isn't a debate, it's just you acting like an ass.

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

Your comparing him to a man who only lost once in his career which was avenged on numerous occasions! One of a select band of boxers in history who have beaten EVERY opponent they have ever faced......

Just think that over for a while will you b4 telling everyone your a keyboard historian - Mr i know more than you coz i've had drinks with Bert Sugar!

If you still think a man whos lost 18 times (did i mention that?) still a better resume at heavyweight then you just sit still, i'll get you some jelly & ice-cream & we can wait for the nice men in white coats to collect you

A lot of older fighters have many losses. Walcott was mismanaged early in his career and had a full time job. His Heavyweight resume is fuller than Gene's by the way of pure numbers. Tunney fought there briefly. His Heavyweight resume isn't any different than Michael Spinks, minus the Tyson destruction.

Can sum1 explain to me where this myth came from that Walcott beat Marciano & was robbed by the judges....

He was knocked out ffs.......... twice!

Kilsby wrote:Can sum1 explain to me where this myth came from that Walcott beat Marciano & was robbed by the judges....

He was knocked out ffs.......... twice!

The best explanation is that you're a raving loon. Either that or you think Marciano was nicknamed The Brown Bomber. Either, or both, seems feasable at this point.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Can sum1 explain to me where this myth came from that Walcott beat Marciano & was robbed by the judges....

He was knocked out ffs.......... twice!

The best explanation is that you're a raving loon. Either that or you think Marciano was nicknamed The Brown Bomber. Either, or both, seems feasable at this point.

^^^^
Ditto


Jersey Joe Walcott

Global ID 11028
sex male
birth date 1914-01-31
death date 1994-02-25
division heavyweight
stance orthodox
height 6′ 0″ / 183cm
reach 74″ / 188cm
country United States
residence Camden, New Jersey, United States
birth place Merchantville, New Jersey, United States
birth name Arnold Raymond Cream
won 51 (KO 32) + lost 18 (KO 6) + drawn 2 = 71
rounds boxed 475 KO% 45.07
biography


Lb St Kg | ↑date↓ | ratings off on | print


date Lb opponent Lb W-L-D last 6 location
1953-05-15 197¾ Rocky Marciano 184½ 43-0-0
Chicago Stadium, Chicago, Illinois, United States L KO 1 15
time: 2:25 | referee: Frank Sikora
World Heavyweight Title

1952-09-23 196½ Rocky Marciano 184½ 42-0-0
Municipal Stadium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States L KO 13 15
time: 0:43 | referee: Charlie Daggert 7-4 | judge: Pete Tomasco 7-5 | judge: Zach Clayton 8-4
World Heavyweight Title

Can it BE any clearer!

Louis NOT Marciano.... aaaahhh - my mistake!

Where the hell did i get Marciano from???

But if anyone out there thinks Walcott was robbed against Marciano then theres gonna be an arguement! lol

He was kicking Rock's ass for the majority of the fight. But that ending was quite definitive.

^^^
the ol' suzy q saw to that....

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

You know what? You are right!!! Jersey Joe Walcott was not a great Heavyweight.... Because he lost 18 times!!!!

I suppose it's something similar to the fact that Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 times....... thats 19 times!!!!
And we all know how bad he was.

Kilsby wrote:Who brought Dempsey into this? lol

Well I see now that we are going to have to take you through this very slowly.

Before, you have stated:

Kilsby wrote:Tunney is FAR better than Walcott.... its not even a debate

Despite the fact that this has already been pointed out to you:

dempseyfire wrote:I'd also rank Walcott over Tunney at HW, far deeper and better HW resume.

Now, even the most enthusiastic of Tunney's supporters acknowledge that Jack Dempsey had him knocked out for 10 seconds. Dempsey should have won that fight, but due to lax refereing Tuuney was able to get up after 14 seconds.

Look at Dempsey's record, he is consistently regarded as a true all-time great. Now compare his best 5 victories with Walcott, and you would have to agree that Walcott makes the grade as an all-time great.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was kicking Rock's ass for the majority of the fight. But that ending was quite definitive.

As was the ending of the sequel, which eradicated any incination of the first fight's ending being an accident.

Now, Mr. Kilsby. I am going to ask you not to repeat you're previous points (as you have a knack of doing).
What else have you brought to the table in regards to your argument of Tunney being greater than Walcott.

My take is that Tunney was definitively Walcott's superior as a fighter, but may've struggled with the combination of styles & size head-to-head. Not sure who would've won it, I suppose I would favour Tunney by a little, given Charles beat him three out of four (realistically).

I have no doubt --- none --- that had Tunney been a career HW, he'd easily be considered Walcott's superior.

Crease wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Walcott fights at heavyweight & lost 18 times............. thats 18 times!!!!

You know what? You are right!!! Jersey Joe Walcott was not a great Heavyweight.... Because he lost 18 times!!!!

I suppose it's something similar to the fact that Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 times....... thats 19 times!!!!
And we all know how bad he was.

LOL @ the Robinson reference, & the fact he lost one more bout than Walcott, thus confirming his eternal mediocrity

What is up with you people? Seriously.... Walcott ISN'T better than Tunney....

Jeez - 10 of the most famous boxing historians of all time have Tunney ranked as the top 10 heavyweight who ever lived!

They don't have Walcott.....

Who was no more than a contender in the 40 & 50's - which is historically looked at (like today) as a poor period for Heavyweight boxing.

As for Tunney Vs Dempsey & the long count... I don't dispute the 14 secs.... But the man in charge of the action is the referee & you only listen to that one man.

If he says the count is 4..... you aren't going to say "actually old chum the correct count is 8" are you?

Watch the video........ he clearly watches the ref before rising at 8.