BoxRec

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!!

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.

Yes, and Louis on the way out by the time Walcott got him but Walcott struggled mightily against him and lost twice. Charles annihilated Louis first time out, not even close. Jones was a very special and rare talent who is arguably one of the greatest P4P kings ever. Walcott was nowhere near Jones talent level so that's a poor comparison. Walcott should have beaten Simon if he was as great a boxer as people say considering the Simon was just a journeyman, prime or not prime. Rahman had ENOUGH hand speed to handle Walcott even though Walcott was faster. Walcott was more of an overachiever who wasn't any kind of legendary talent. He had heart and made the most of what he had but he didn't have enough to overcome the disadvantages against Rahman.

Walcott wasn't a good enough boxer to beat Rahman.. He didn't have real good range of his jab and his right hand.. Rahman had good range on those shots.. Jersey Joe lost to guys a lot slower than Rahman as well.. He lost to Johnny Allen in his 40th fight, a guy with a losing record of 11-14... He lost to slow pokey light hitter Joey Maxim who he outweighed by 12 pounds... He lost to the very slow Rex Layne when he had a ton of experience... His record was spotted with losses, and not just when he was a greenhorned rookie.. He had 15 years experience when he lost to Allen.

He was better boxer from Rahman sure .
I do not know for win due to weight but certainly was better.

Some people simply don't know enough about Walcott. He had a strange career. He had no real management team around him for the first several years of his career. He took fights at short notice, and was not properly trained. His career stopped and started more than once in his 20s. After Dan Florio took over, his career changed dramatically. Even though he was already in his early 30s, his career took off. He was not a ranked contender until he was 31.
He was the exception; he was much better in his 30s than his 20s.

People like to point at his losses early in his career. However, from 1946-1952 he was a great fighter.
He was a different fighter than the one who lost to Johnny Allen. In the rematch, he knocked him out in the 3rd round. He lost to Maxim, but that was a bad decison, and he beat Maxim twice after that.

Rahman was never that at all. The Joe Louis that Walcott fought was much better than the version of Joe Louis that Charles beat who was fading and rusty.
Walcott went 2-2 against Charles. He beat Jimmy Bivins who was a great fighter. Beat Elmer Ray who was really good heavyweight.

He was a talented fighter. He could do things that Rahman simply could not. Next to a prime Ali, Walcott was probably as fast on his feet as any heavyweight who ever lived. He good hand speed, a good jab, a great left hook and a good right hand.

The difference in sill between Walcott in his prime vs Rahman is night and day. Walcott was much, much more skilled.

It is a huge mistake to look at a fighters win/loss record and think you know all about him.
Also a huge mistake to look at the scales and assume that a heavier heavyweight will easily beat a smaller heavyweight.
At a certain, point the extra weight stops becoming and advantage and eventually becomes a disadvantage.

I can point to numerous examples of the much smaller man heavyweight winning.

Wow Ambling Alp... If you limit the period that we should look at Walcott's career to 1946 to '52, you're cutting 15 years out of his career.

However...from 1946 to '52 Wacott's record was still only 15-9...how impressive is that??? Walcott still lost Joey Maxim who had 13 losses at the time... was very slow... was very easy to hit... was a very light powder-puff hitter... and was very small at Heavyweight.. I don’t believe any other prime Heavyweight champion, with the possible exception of Jimmy Braddock, would lose to Joey Maxim -- and I’m including Michael Bentt, Tommy Morrison, and Leon Spinks in that assessment.. Middleweight Ray Robinson was beating Maxim for 12 rounds.

Walcott was anything but impressed by the size, height, strength, speed, or skills of Rocky Marciano - who actually didn't look very impressive or evasive anytime you watched him spar or fight.. Walcott told reporters, "You can take my name out of the record book if this guy beats me."

That is the problem with looking at win/loss records in boxing. Look at who the 15-9 was against. 13 of these fights were against Hall of Famers! 18 were against top 10 contenders at a time when there was only one champion.

7 of the losses were to Hall of Famers. All but one were compettive fights; two were considered fights that he should have got the decision.

You keep bringing up the Maxim fight. That is a fight in which is viewed as a bad decison. Floyd Patterson got a raw deal against Maxim which you yourself brought up as being unfair for Patterson.
He also won beat Maxim the other two times that they fought.

He beat Charles twice.
He beat Jimmy Bivins and Elmer Ray. Both were have been titleholders had they fought in era with 4 champions.
He beat Harold Johnson who had a lot of success against other heavyweights, including wins over Eddie Machen and Nino Valdes.

Was Walcott he greatest heavyweight of allime? Of course not. Rahmans many mediocre perfromances/losses should be taken into a consideration as well.

There is a reason why Walcott is a Hall of Famer who got inducted in the very first induction class. I have never heard anyone say Walcott should not be in the Hall of Fame.
There is a reason why Rahman won't ever make it. Have never heard anyone say he should make it.

Walcott's win over Harold Johnson was a fluke. Johnson was suffering a terrible back injury and went down without being hit... Look it up on boxrec.com under their listed fight.. It says "Johnson collapsed without being hit. Dr. I. Joseph Levey, the commission doctor, later revealed that Johnson had suffered an injury to an intervertebral disc in his back."

Walcott lost his first 2 fights to the smaller Charles... Walcott was assisted in his last 2 fights with Charles... ALS was doing it's dirty work on Charles by then.

Walcott beat some good small guys. But beating a big Heavyweight who could jab and throw the right was well beyond him.. Dottering Joe Louis knocked Walcott out. I happen to know that Louis couldn't even beat a fair player at table tennis when he stopped Walcott -- which is a game boxers play to keep their reflexes, vision, and accuracy sharp. Louis was gone and he knew it. Louis retired after he knocked Walcott out, and only came back because he was desperate for money.

When he won, then apologies for opponents and when he lost, then it's ok. Nonsense.

Agreed; the usual drivel. And of course he keep out all the embarrassing losses and bad performances by Rahman.
There is absolutely no evidence at all that Charles was already showing effects of ALS when Walcott beat him. Complete nonsense. Charles just beat Maxim two months prior and look good; he looked good just four before in the 2nd Walcott-Charles fight. Charles looked great in several other fights following the third Walcott fight.

Kalan just read the boxrec tidbit about Johnson not getting hit when he got knocked out by Walcott. Even if that true, (I have never heard that anywhere else) he doesn't mention Walcott did knock him down in the second round.

Louis was certainly past his best when he fought Walcott, but he certainly had quite a bit left.

No he didn't... Louis had nothing left when he flattened Walcott... And Charles won 40 straight fights without a defeat, if you include what every single writer called a robbery versus Elmer Ray... Charles beat a younger Walcott twice, but lost to a 37 and 38 year old Walcott.. Charles himself said his career started to take a turn south with Charles-Walcott 3.. He wasn't the same.. Two years later Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson beat him and at his best he doesn't lose to those guys... especially Valdes

ALS can progress very slowly. You can have good days and bad days.. Charles still had some good wins, but he started losing more and more often until he was losing practically every fight by the time he was in his mid 30's.. He thought it was aging, but when he was diagnosed he knew it was ALS all along.

I admit that both Rahman and Walcott had a lot of losses... But Walcott had twice as many losses, and lost to some lower caliber fighters as well as good ones... All the guys who beat Rahman were practically all World Champions or Championship caliber fighters like David Tua -- until Rahman's last fight when he could barely stand up anymore and could no longer trade on his name and being an ex-champ... Charles admitted he traded on his name too -- when he couldn't fight anymore fans still came out to see "Ezzard Charles" and were shocked at the way he performed.

ALS is not is not the reason of defeat from Walcot.Not at all that I do not think he had the ASL 1952.
And after losing the title had he of excellent fighting and beating by excellent boxer example Bivins,Layne.

ALS doesn't get you all at once... It might be affecting you for decades before you realize something is definitely wrong and get diagnosed... So Charles was going down slowly and losing more and more fights more frequently -- until he couldn't hold a fork... That's when he knew for sure it was something other than just the normal aging process getting to him early ... After all he beat Walcott in their first 2 meetings.

Disease and slow down or very slow to come. I do not doubt for 1955 and later years but this does not make sense for 1952, when you read more about the disease.
You could then 1950.1951 and 1952 to look good in their fights. I read a lot about the ASL and Ezzard, there is no question that is so lost the title.

If you read so much, you know that there are an incredible number of variants of the disease... Some people are diagnosed in their teens and are still active in their 60's and 70's... Some die lose mobility, than breathing capacity and die, within a few years of diagnoses... So some cases are fast and you're gone in a few years -- some are slow and you might last for 50 years or more. Charles died at 53 I believe and he had the slow kind.

With this disease you can not beat a couple of months earlier and then lose, then again win great fighters.When the disease occurs, then it feels and in the last three years Ezzard felt the difference. 1951 and 1952 no talk about the disease because they would not able to perform at that level.

There is no point in creating a disease for defeat of Walcott. Just does not make sense when looking at the period of these fights and that in the first two fights Charles won. This is logical.
After Ezzard from the fourth match is nothing slower than from their first match. It is easy to see it.