BoxRec

silkov wrote:Abe Simon was probably one of the most formidable fighters Louis fought, very powerful and pretty fast for such a big guy, he would have given Walcott a hard fight at any point and its foolish to say that it wasn't a legitamate victory or that Walcott was green!!!...

walcot who was well before his prime was dominating simons the first 5 rounds before walcott ran out of gas and fell over more from exhaustion than from simons punches. like foreman did with ali except worse!

a prime walcott would easily beat simon, just take a look at wut that version of walcott was doing to simon and imagine what a prime walcott would have done! simon was made for jersey joe!



it was was not a legit victory because walcott was not in his prime when he fought simons. is willie armstrongs decision over dick tiger count as a legit win? no because even though tiger was 28, he was not even a contender at the time and far before his prime . walcott was a part time journeyman fighter at the time simon beat him and walcott took the fight on 24 hr notice!

simons win counts for as much as beating a journeyman. i mean look at walcotts record at the time. walcott was losing to every contender he faced and drawing with 18-19 fighters!


prime walcott 15 wide unanimous Simon




collins, i heard theres breif footage of marciano and vingo slugging it out before it show vingo out on the floor

collins,


obsession?



obsession is a word lazy people use to describe dedicated!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:Abe Simon was probably one of the most formidable fighters Louis fought, very powerful and pretty fast for such a big guy, he would have given Walcott a hard fight at any point and its foolish to say that it wasn't a legitamate victory or that Walcott was green!!!...

walcot who was well before his prime was dominating simons the first 5 rounds before walcott ran out of gas and fell over more from exhaustion than from simons punches. like foreman did with ali except worse!
a prime walcott would easily beat simon, just take a look at wut that version of walcott was doing to simon and imagine what a prime walcott would have done! simon was made for jersey joe!



it was was not a legit victory because walcott was not in his prime when he fought simons. is willie armstrongs decision over dick tiger count as a legit win? no because even though tiger was 28, he was not even a contender at the time and far before his prime . walcott was a part time journeyman fighter at the time simon beat him and walcott took the fight on 24 hr notice!

simons win counts for as much as beating a journeyman. i mean look at walcotts record at the time. walcott was losing to every contender he faced and drawing with 18-19 fighters!


prime walcott 15 wide unanimous Simon




collins, i heard theres breif footage of marciano and vingo slugging it out before it show vingo out on the floor

You have a vivid imagination regarding Abe "Freakin" Simon's bout with Jersey Joe considering you are going on a report from a bloke who read a report years ago (and which he can't locate anymore).

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:Abe Simon was probably one of the most formidable fighters Louis fought, very powerful and pretty fast for such a big guy, he would have given Walcott a hard fight at any point and its foolish to say that it wasn't a legitamate victory or that Walcott was green!!!...

walcot who was well before his prime was dominating simons the first 5 rounds before walcott ran out of gas and fell over more from exhaustion than from simons punches. like foreman did with ali except worse!

a prime walcott would easily beat simon, just take a look at wut that version of walcott was doing to simon and imagine what a prime walcott would have done! simon was made for jersey joe!



it was was not a legit victory because walcott was not in his prime when he fought simons. is willie armstrongs decision over dick tiger count as a legit win? no because even though tiger was 28, he was not even a contender at the time and far before his prime . walcott was a part time journeyman fighter at the time simon beat him and walcott took the fight on 24 hr notice!

simons win counts for as much as beating a journeyman. i mean look at walcotts record at the time. walcott was losing to every contender he faced and drawing with 18-19 fighters!


prime walcott 15 wide unanimous Simon




collins, i heard theres breif footage of marciano and vingo slugging it out before it show vingo out on the floor

Show me the evidence?. Dismissing Simons win like that is rather harsh considering you praise Marcianos victory over Walcott in such glowing terms. The truth is Walcott was an erratic fighter through all his career (see loss to Rex Layne) but that is the fighter he was and to say that Simons victory is worthless is biased to the limit...

Show me the evidence?. Dismissing Simons win like that is rather harsh considering you praise Marcianos victory over Walcott in such glowing terms. The truth is Walcott was an erratic fighter through all his career (see loss to Rex Layne) but that is the fighter he was and to say that Simons victory is worthless is biased to the limit...

Yeah, Walcott was a fantastic fighter who had great moments, but tends to get overrated on this site a bit. Especially by Marciano fans.
The better he seems, the better it makes the Rock for beating him.

walcott lost to marciano in 52. walcott lost to abe simon in 1940. HUGE DIFFERENCE. walcott's best fighting years were 1947-1952. walcott was at or near his best when he lost to rock. walcott wasnt even close to his best when he lost to simon




look at walcotts record oging into the simon fight. walcott had BEAT NO ONE in the top 10, and lost to every major contender he faced. walcott was only a journeyman when simon beat him.


when rock beat him, walcott was a heavyweight champion coming off back to back wins over HOF ezzard charles.



now u see the difference? walcott was not in his prime when he lost to simon. in fact, he wasnt even a contender.



simons win over walcott counts as much as much as roy lazors win over walcott. walcott was not the best fighter simon ever beat. walcott was a journeyman part time fighter when simon beat him.




are u honestly going to sit here and tell me walcott who lossed to louis was the same walcott who lost to abe simon?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott lost to marciano in 52. walcott lost to abe simon in 1940. HUGE DIFFERENCE. walcott's best fighting years were 1947-1952. walcott was at or near his best when he lost to rock. walcott wasnt even close to his best when he lost to simon




look at walcotts record oging into the simon fight. walcott had BEAT NO ONE in the top 10, and lost to every major contender he faced. walcott was only a journeyman when simon beat him.


when rock beat him, walcott was a heavyweight champion coming off back to back wins over HOF ezzard charles.



now u see the difference? walcott was not in his prime when he lost to simon. in fact, he wasnt even a contender.



simons win over walcott counts as much as much as roy lazors win over walcott. walcott was not the best fighter simon ever beat. walcott was a journeyman part time fighter when simon beat him.




are u honestly going to sit here and tell me walcott who lossed to louis was the same walcott who lost to abe simon?

Unless he had a twin that we don't know about then it was the same guy, by the time Walcott fought Simon he had already been a pro for almost 10 years, hardly green, also he had good wins over Willie Reddish, Al ettore, Elmar Ray.... Walcott was always erratic... a look through his record shows this... why can't you accept that Simon won fair and square like he did???....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott lost to marciano in 52. walcott lost to abe simon in 1940. HUGE DIFFERENCE. walcott's best fighting years were 1947-1952. walcott was at or near his best when he lost to rock. walcott wasnt even close to his best when he lost to simon




look at walcotts record oging into the simon fight. walcott had BEAT NO ONE in the top 10, and lost to every major contender he faced. walcott was only a journeyman when simon beat him.


when rock beat him, walcott was a heavyweight champion coming off back to back wins over HOF ezzard charles.



now u see the difference? walcott was not in his prime when he lost to simon. in fact, he wasnt even a contender.



simons win over walcott counts as much as much as roy lazors win over walcott. walcott was not the best fighter simon ever beat. walcott was a journeyman part time fighter when simon beat him.




are u honestly going to sit here and tell me walcott who lossed to louis was the same walcott who lost to abe simon?

Was the Walcott who lost to Louis a different one to the Walcott who lost to Joey Maxim and Elmar Ray a few months previously??... (the same Elmar Ray he had koed years ago before losing to Simon???!).

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott lost to marciano in 52. walcott lost to abe simon in 1940. HUGE DIFFERENCE. walcott's best fighting years were 1947-1952. walcott was at or near his best when he lost to rock. walcott wasnt even close to his best when he lost to simon




look at walcotts record oging into the simon fight. walcott had BEAT NO ONE in the top 10, and lost to every major contender he faced. walcott was only a journeyman when simon beat him.


when rock beat him, walcott was a heavyweight champion coming off back to back wins over HOF ezzard charles.



now u see the difference? walcott was not in his prime when he lost to simon. in fact, he wasnt even a contender.



simons win over walcott counts as much as much as roy lazors win over walcott. walcott was not the best fighter simon ever beat. walcott was a journeyman part time fighter when simon beat him.




are u honestly going to sit here and tell me walcott who lossed to louis was the same walcott who lost to abe simon?

Unless he had a twin that we don't know about then it was the same guy, by the time Walcott fought Simon he had already been a pro for almost 10 years, hardly green, also he had good wins over Willie Reddish, Al ettore, Elmar Ray.... Walcott was always erratic... a look through his record shows this... why can't you accept that Simon won fair and square like he did???....

\


because SIMON DID NOT BEAT A PRIME WALCOTT. walcott was not in his prime in 1940.


o and check ur records, walcott was stopped by al ettore only further backing up my claim walcott was not in his prime. elmer ray was VERY GREEN when walcott beat him in 1937 . the real elmer ray walcott beat was in 1947 when ray was in his prime. willie reddish? u must be kidding me. he was never a top ten contender.




walcott was a fighter who got better with age and had a late prime. are u dneying this silkov?




did george klondike stop a prime johnson? no he stopped johnson well before his prime so the victory doesnt count as much.




are u trying to tell me walcott was in his prime when he lost to simon?

are u trying to tell me walcott was a contender when simon beat him?



are u denying walcott was a part time journeyman when simon beat him?

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott lost to marciano in 52. walcott lost to abe simon in 1940. HUGE DIFFERENCE. walcott's best fighting years were 1947-1952. walcott was at or near his best when he lost to rock. walcott wasnt even close to his best when he lost to simon




look at walcotts record oging into the simon fight. walcott had BEAT NO ONE in the top 10, and lost to every major contender he faced. walcott was only a journeyman when simon beat him.


when rock beat him, walcott was a heavyweight champion coming off back to back wins over HOF ezzard charles.



now u see the difference? walcott was not in his prime when he lost to simon. in fact, he wasnt even a contender.



simons win over walcott counts as much as much as roy lazors win over walcott. walcott was not the best fighter simon ever beat. walcott was a journeyman part time fighter when simon beat him.




are u honestly going to sit here and tell me walcott who lossed to louis was the same walcott who lost to abe simon?

Was the Walcott who lost to Louis a different one to the Walcott who lost to Joey Maxim and Elmar Ray a few months previously??... (the same Elmar Ray he had koed years ago before losing to Simon???!).

walcott lost to abe simon in 1940, SEVEN YEARS BEFORE WALCOTTS PRIME


and NO it was not the same elmer ray. elmer ray was a far better fighter when walcott beat him in 1947 then in 1937 when walcott knocked him out.


when walcott beat ray in 1937, ray was 10-4 with 4 out of his last 5 fights being losses including 2 knockouts to fighters making there pro debuts! ray was not in his prime then


however when walcott beat ray in 1947, he beat a prime elmer ray who was 77-9 and was the # 1 contender who had not lossed in the previous 4 years!

theone wrote:

Show me the evidence?. Dismissing Simons win like that is rather harsh considering you praise Marcianos victory over Walcott in such glowing terms. The truth is Walcott was an erratic fighter through all his career (see loss to Rex Layne) but that is the fighter he was and to say that Simons victory is worthless is biased to the limit...

Yeah, Walcott was a fantastic fighter who had great moments, but tends to get overrated on this site a bit. Especially by Marciano fans.
The better he seems, the better it makes the Rock for beating him.

i rate him in my top 20 heavyweights of all time, i dont consider that overating when u look at his resume of wins


walcott beat



joe louis- yes im counting it as a win
ezzard charles
harold johnson
elmer ray
jimmy bivins
joey maxim


those are 6 great fighters right there and 5 hall of famers


and he beat other top contenders or big punchers like

tommy gomez
curtis sheppard
joe baski
lee Q Murray
hein ten hoff
lee oma
ollie tandberg
omelio agramonte


when u add that together u got a damm fine resume




Thats all u need to do is watch walcott on film to realize how great he was. to me, he looked like one of the best ring technicians in heavyweight history and not only that, but walcott could punch too . what are ur thoughts theone, from watching him on film?


walcotts a guy who ranks much better in a head to head sense




eddie futch called walcott "one of the finest technicians in heavyweight boxing history"

i don't see walcott as being much different in 45 or 46 as to 47.his fights with maxim and ray were equally as close they just went the other way.in 45 it looks like he had got his act together,had his personal circumstances improved by this time?

dalek wrote:i don't see walcott as being much different in 45 or 46 as to 47.his fights with maxim and ray were equally as close they just went the other way.in 45 it looks like he had got his act together,had his personal circumstances improved by this time?

in 45, he lost to a 8-12 fighter so u can throw that out the window.


walcott really came into his own in 1946 when he upset # 1 contender hall of famer jimmy bivins who hadnt lossed in 3 years . however look how walcott loses to maxim and ray in 1946, then revenges the losses in 1947. he was a better fighter in 47. however he was defintley close to his best in 1946.


i have newspaper reports on the ray fights, it appears walcott should have won both bouts in 46 and 47. in the 1947 fight, walcott floored ray 3 times.

he lost in jan 45,however he went the rest of the year undefeated,including a win against the formiddable baksi.i think he was running into his best form.

dalek wrote:he lost in jan 45,however he went the rest of the year undefeated,including a win against the formiddable baksi.i think he was running into his best form.

i agree, by 1946 he was almost there. in 1945, check how his weight is often in high 180s. walcotts best fighting weight was mid 190s thats why i favor his best more in 46 and 47 when hes consistentley wieghing in at that weight.