BoxRec

I still think it's a mod, likely buzz, enjoying themselves.

Going line by line:
No.
No.
No.
2 of the four. See if you can figure out which two.

Marciano was very tough, durable, and a real good puncher for his size.. But his record is really puffed up before he faced the aging Walcott.. Rocky was 9-4 as an amateur.. After he knocked out the chinny Walcott twice he fought very small challengers, who were mostly Light Heavyweights..

40-year-old LIght Heavyweight Archie Moore---and the ridiculously flabby and super chinny Don Cockell - who was previously knocked out by Middleweight Randy Turpin and feather hitting LHW Jimmy Slade---both went 9 rounds with Marciano and took tons of punches before Rocky finally beat them down.. You can't tell me those guys would go 9 rounds with Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Luis Ortiz, or Antony Joshua.. Boxing Commission wouldn't even allow those kind of "Heavyweight Championship Fights" today. They would be ridiculous.

Tomasino wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Keko wrote:Walcot from the match with Lous 1 to sweeping Rahman

Louis retired after beating Walcott because he was 43 and had deteriorating skills as Charles proved 2 years later. Louis dropped him anyway. Sorry, but he didn't dominate Louis like Charles did. Marciano was a whopping 5'10 184 lbs and KO'd Walcott quick, twice. Rahman was a top HW contender in his prime. He had decent footwork, a good jab, and good power. Walcott would be a CW at best today. Most CWs can't cut it against top HWs of today. That's why they have their own division. Walcott was no Holyfield, either. Rahman would render Walcott comatose if he connects on just one or two power shots.

The Rock KOd Walcott in 13 the first fight, after a fight of the year battle, the likes of which fat Rahman could never have competed in. Marciano, despite his size was one of the hardest punchers in history. He was also utterly fearless and incredibly durable.

Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I still think it's a mod, likely buzz, enjoying themselves.

The thoughts crossed my mind more than once

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:[

Marciano, despite his size was one of the hardest punchers in history. He was also utterly fearless and incredibly durable.

In case you hadn't noticed the overwhelming majority of fighters are utterly fearless, and a good percentage of them are very durable.

However to claim those 2 attributes means they can just eat punches from the likes of Rahman, Lewis, Tyson, or the K2 brothers is beyond stupid.

Why the insults? Joe Louis, Walcott and Charles all said the Rock was the hardest hitter.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed the overwhelming majority of fighters are utterly fearless, and a good percentage of them are very durable.

However to claim those 2 attributes means they can just eat punches from the likes of Rahman, Lewis, Tyson, or the K2 brothers is beyond stupid.

Why the insults? Joe Louis, Walcott and Charles all said the Rock was the hardest hitter.

What are you talking about, insults? You call people idiots, who disagree with you, but get insulted when a general comment was made. Hmm, smells of hypocrisy there.

How the hell would Louis, Walcott, or Charles have any idea of how hard Lewis, Tyson, K2 bros, or even Rahman hit?

Time for ignore old man

Growth Rates. That's the key to drawing any meaningful comparison.

In 1955, Rocky Marciano was 5'10.5, 189 pounds.

In 2001, when 6'2.5, 238 Hasim Rachman was champ,
Marciano -- projecting growth rates of the average
American male, would have been about 6'1, 220.

Jersey Joe Walcott -- 6'0", 197 in 1953, would
have been about 6'2, 230 in 2001.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Growth Rates. That's the key to drawing any meaningful comparison.

In 1955, Rocky Marciano was 5'10.5, 189 pounds.

In 2001, when 6'2.5, 238 Hasim Rachman was champ,
Marciano -- projecting growth rates of the average
American male, would have been about 6'1, 220.

Jersey Joe Walcott -- 6'0", 197 in 1953, would
have been about 6'2, 230 in 2001.

OR look at it the other way around:

In 1955, Hasim Rachman would have been about 6'0.5, 208 lbs.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Growth Rates. That's the key to drawing any meaningful comparison.

In 1955, Rocky Marciano was 5'10.5, 189 pounds.

In 2001, when 6'2.5, 238 Hasim Rachman was champ,
Marciano -- projecting growth rates of the average
American male, would have been about 6'1, 220.

Jersey Joe Walcott -- 6'0", 197 in 1953, would
have been about 6'2, 230 in 2001.

OR look at it the other way around:

In 1955, Hasim Rachman would have been about 6'0.5, 208 lbs.

Sorry: RAHMAN

jbizzle20 wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Louis retired after beating Walcott because he was 43 and had deteriorating skills as Charles proved 2 years later. Louis dropped him anyway. Sorry, but he didn't dominate Louis like Charles did. Marciano was a whopping 5'10 184 lbs and KO'd Walcott quick, twice. Rahman was a top HW contender in his prime. He had decent footwork, a good jab, and good power. Walcott would be a CW at best today. Most CWs can't cut it against top HWs of today. That's why they have their own division. Walcott was no Holyfield, either. Rahman would render Walcott comatose if he connects on just one or two power shots.

The Rock KOd Walcott in 13 the first fight, after a fight of the year battle, the likes of which fat Rahman could never have competed in. Marciano, despite his size was one of the hardest punchers in history. He was also utterly fearless and incredibly durable.

Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I still think it's a mod, likely buzz, enjoying themselves.

Seriously? You suspect that I created this persona?

Fair enough, but what that tells me is that you live in a very very small pond.

In this world, anything you can imagine is out there. Probably operating right under your nose.

I personally sat in the office of a local legislator a few months ago, advocating that he consider voting on a funding bill to assist the disabled. We had a good conversation, but I did not persuade the guy. He wanted to "protect the taxpayers wallet". Being a taxpayer, I couldn't hate him for that. And left it there, hoping that my words might produce better results with others.

Some folks have there "priorities" I thought to myself. (By the way NH does not pay a salary to it's house legislators, so you could say we get exactly what we pay for.

.........Google "Kyle Tasker". He WAS a NH legislator who was busted for attempting to entice a 15 year old to have sex using the internet. He was busted, and in his home was found enough drugs and weapons to start a small south American cartel.

You can't even begin to imagine the many many viewpoints and behaviors that exist, if you can't even imagine a "Kalan"....who is a relatively benign character.

I (probably like you) do have a hard time imagining that he really is a former successful trainer, but it's not impossible. They do tend to be a bit eccentric. But is opinions aren't that far off the chart....just a bit bent from my personal viewpoint....and yours apparently.

I only read the first line, but yes.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

The Rock KOd Walcott in 13 the first fight, after a fight of the year battle, the likes of which fat Rahman could never have competed in. Marciano, despite his size was one of the hardest punchers in history. He was also utterly fearless and incredibly durable.

Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Good post!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I only read the first line, but yes.

It wasn't really meant for you....I appreciate your discretion.

Keko wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:
Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Good post!

IF this is a good post, why/when and where do we need to concern ourselves with the tale of the tape? (I don't have a strong opinion...yet....but if the divisions were pertinent, then why over a certain weight, should it not remain pertinent?)

I'm one of the Walcott supporters here, but the size question is still of interest to myself and perhaps others.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Keko wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Good post!

IF this is a good post, why/when and where do we need to concern ourselves with the tale of the tape? (I don't have a strong opinion...yet....but if the divisions were pertinent, then why over a certain weight, should it not remain pertinent?)

I'm one of the Walcott supporters here, but the size question is still of interest to myself and perhaps others.

Everything is exactly he wrote and I have no reason to repeat. I agree with his thinking

I do not like too much of this debate who would win because everyone is up to us subjective. Everyone is entitled to their own thinking.

For me Rahman was a very good boxer but the fact that Walcott certainly bigger name and deserved top 20 all time.

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed the overwhelming majority of fighters are utterly fearless, and a good percentage of them are very durable.

However to claim those 2 attributes means they can just eat punches from the likes of Rahman, Lewis, Tyson, or the K2 brothers is beyond stupid.

Why the insults? Joe Louis, Walcott and Charles all said the Rock was the hardest hitter.

What are you talking about, insults? You call people idiots, who disagree with you, but get insulted when a general comment was made. Hmm, smells of hypocrisy there.

How the hell would Louis, Walcott, or Charles have any idea of how hard Lewis, Tyson, K2 bros, or even Rahman hit?

I don't believe they ever said that Rocky was the hardest hitter---and they didn't fight everybody so they wouldn't know anyway... Louis, Walcott, and Charles were all knocked out by small fighters in their primes and by little Marciano when they were gone gooses... Louis was knocked down many times... Walcott was knocked out many times... Charles was knocked out many times... They all fought Marciano when they were washed up.

It's not reasonable to assume that a man who takes 9 rounds to knock out little guys like old Light Heavyweight Archie Moore and chinny and flabby Don Cockell could punch harder than Heavyweights who crushed Floyd Patterson.. Joe Frazier.. Ken Norton.. Lennox Lewis.. and other sturdier Heavyweights in 1 or 2 rounds each -- and who smashed bigger and taller Light Heavyweights like Bob Foster and Michael Spinks out cold in 1 or 2 rounds---as if they were tinker toys... Add that to the fact that Rocky was easy to hit and knocked on his can by a Light Heavyweight and a Cruiserweight, and he wouldn't have a prayer today.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

The Rock KOd Walcott in 13 the first fight, after a fight of the year battle, the likes of which fat Rahman could never have competed in. Marciano, despite his size was one of the hardest punchers in history. He was also utterly fearless and incredibly durable.

Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Yes, all big, incredibly slow guys and Walcott still didn't beat a fading Louis that Charles obliterated 2 years later. Rahman looks like Ray Leonard compared to Baer, Simon, or Carnera. Try watching a few Rahman fights. Athleticism does matter somewhat and Rahman had it. Walcott probably wasn't quite as fast as Rahman but Rahman had a massive power advantage and enough quickness to hold his own. Simon throws one punch and its lights out for Walcott. Rahman had much faster hands plus a big body. That's a combination that will put Jersey Joe out, real quick. To think I get knocked for even suggesting Chocolatito fight Rigondeaux, a mere 7 lb weight difference, but people are saying Walcott will overcome a 30-40 lb difference!!

The great Jersey Joe Walcott was more skilled.
Hasim Rahman was way too big.
Rahman wins because of the huge weight discrepancy.
Put both of them at same weight range, and it's no contest! Walcott beats the crap out of Rahman!
Walcott at 195lbs in his prime versus a 230lbs or more behemoth in Rahman is not a fair fight, folks. Rahman wins by knockout!

In this particular case size and strength would carry the day... However, outstanding boxing and punching ability can overcome 30 or 40 pounds of weight in the Heavyweight Division... Fights like Haye vs Chisora bear this out.. Some writers said Chisora was simply too big and strong for Haye.. Haye was a rock-hard and ripped to shreds 210, very powerful for his size, very smart, and an outstanding boxer-puncher with great speed and a well healed toe... Chisora was 247 but only a fair boxer at best, not a great puncher, and wasn't very fast or very smart... For me, Haye was a no-brainer winner of that one, even giving up 37 pounds.

I see Rahman and Walcott as not really outstanding boxers or punchers.. both chinny.. both stall around a lot.. and both fairly open.. but Rahman could jab a little, and throw his right pretty hard on guys like the hittable Kallie Meehan---who he beat very easily compared to Brewster, a hooker who didn't throw straight shots that well.. Walcott was available to be hit and not real clever despite his cake walk and faking around with his hands... I think any much bigger guy with fair feet, a good jab, real power in his straight right, and fair boxing ability was going to stop him.

A Quick Walcott Anecdote.

5 December 1947 Louis-Walcott I

"Experts considered Walcott such a bad fighter that the bout was originally scheduled as an exhibition; it became a championship fight only at the insistence of the New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC).' Beyond the Ring, Sammons


I believe the same thing happened with the Louis-Davis fight (11/14/1944) - this is from Boxrec for the Davis fight:

'Heavyweight title at stake per New York State Athletic Commission ruling by chairman Gen. John J. Phelan who declared that there would be no "exhibitions" in his jurisdiction, thus forcing Louis to knockout Davis rather than risk an oddball decision against him.

Boxrec does not make the same claim regarding the first Louis-Walcott fight; Sammons does.

I don't think Louis was "forced" to KO Davis.. He could beat such a rank amateur all day by decision if he wanted to carry him the distance.. No oddball decision by 3 officials is going to go against Louis vs such a chump opponent in a million years.. He'd have to hold Davis up.

But anytime a an exhibition is changed to a real fight all deals are off.. You don't want anybody swinging at your chin.. This guy was going to go out from light hits anyway so it didn't matter... The fact is, Davis shouldn't have been in the ring with Louis. Commissions sometimes treat boxers like Dubya Bush treated combat soldiers. Expendable items.

jbizzle20 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:
Fact is that big slow Abe Simon put Walcott's lights out. That's the only guy that is in Rahman's physical class who Walcott fought. Simon was slower than Rahman. Rahman wasn't totally devoid of athleticism or quickness. He had enough to catch Walcott with at least one or two big shots, and that's all it would take!

Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Yes, all big, incredibly slow guys and Walcott still didn't beat a fading Louis that Charles obliterated 2 years later. Rahman looks like Ray Leonard compared to Baer, Simon, or Carnera. Try watching a few Rahman fights. Athleticism does matter somewhat and Rahman had it. Walcott probably wasn't quite as fast as Rahman but Rahman had a massive power advantage and enough quickness to hold his own. Simon throws one punch and its lights out for Walcott. Rahman had much faster hands plus a big body. That's a combination that will put Jersey Joe out, real quick. To think I get knocked for even suggesting Chocolatito fight Rigondeaux, a mere 7 lb weight difference, but people are saying Walcott will overcome a 30-40 lb difference!!

I guess I will have to point out the obvious that apparently you didn't know. When Charles beat Louis, Louks was 36 and had not fought in over two years.
I guess you didn't know that just about everyone who saw the first Louis-Walcott fight thought Walcott deserved the decision.
Yes Baer, Carnera, and Simon were slow. That is one of my points. Bigger doesn't always mean better.
Walcott looks like Ray Leonard compared to Rahman.
Have seen Rahman many times. No, Rahman wasn't athletic. Never heard anyone of accusing him of being so.
Walcctt was about 5 years from reaching his prime when he fought Simon. Which is why nobody pays attention to it.
Rahman did not have a huge power advantage. Several fighters who were stopped multiple times went the distance or beat Rahman.
Walcott could punch. He decked Joe Louis times in their two fights. He is one of only two fighters to knockdown Marciano. Watch his left hook against Charles.
Rahman had faster hands? Than Waloctt? What in the world are you talking about? That is a whopper. Walcott was much, much faster.

A 30-40 pound weight difference has been overcome in many, many fights. I already named a few. I can name many more. How about another with fighters that you are more familar with. Roy Jones (smaller and not as strong than Walcott) beat John Ruiz; a contemporary of Rahman who beat Rahman. Ruiz outweighed Jones by 33 pounds; yet Jones won easily.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Walcott was not the fighter that he would become at the time of the Simon fight. There were plenty of guys that Rahman fought who were knocked out multiple times that Rahman failed to stop. He wasn't that big of a puncher.
Rahman was not in Walcott's league.
Compared to Walcott, Rahman was very slow.

People need to stop being obsessed with scales.
Joe Louis knocked out Simon, buddy Baer, and Carnera who were all bigger than Rahman. Also knocked out Max Baer who was about Rahmans size.
Yet Walcott probably should have beaten Louis over 15 rounds and lasted until the 11th in the rematch. They were both under the magical 200 pound mark.

Everyone should try actually watching some of Walcott's fights some time.

Yes, all big, incredibly slow guys and Walcott still didn't beat a fading Louis that Charles obliterated 2 years later. Rahman looks like Ray Leonard compared to Baer, Simon, or Carnera. Try watching a few Rahman fights. Athleticism does matter somewhat and Rahman had it. Walcott probably wasn't quite as fast as Rahman but Rahman had a massive power advantage and enough quickness to hold his own. Simon throws one punch and its lights out for Walcott. Rahman had much faster hands plus a big body. That's a combination that will put Jersey Joe out, real quick. To think I get knocked for even suggesting Chocolatito fight Rigondeaux, a mere 7 lb weight difference, but people are saying Walcott will overcome a 30-40 lb difference!!

Walcott looks like Ray Leoanrd compared to Rahman.

It is not questionable