BoxRec

controversial has been degrading marcianos opposition for years now. he refuses to believe walcott was near his best on sept 22 1952.

there is no reason to believe charles was faded. he was 29 years old, hadnt lost in 3 years, WAS HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, and was coming off a wide decision over walcott just 5 months prior. charles was in excellent shape.




How do you think Walcott had slipped so much since the Charles fights? Walcott had just taken his two wins over Charles less than a year before he fought Marciano. He was in tip-top shape for the Marciano fight, focused, confident, and determined, and his performance reflected it.
If you believe it is possible Walcott had started slipping for the first Marciano fight, then Clearly he was not far past his prime, as the third Charles fight, just a year before his fight with Marciano, was quite likely the best performance of his career, in which he won nearly every round and then flattened Charles with one incredible punch. His prime years unquestionably came much later in his career than they do in most fighters' careers- 38 years old for Walcott is MUCH different than 38 years old for most other fighters.

He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.

controversial, you just dont know dipshit about jersey joe walcott. you have not studied his career in depth.



jersey joe was not "over the hill" when he fought marciano. Walcott was undeniably a late-bloomer as a fighter. Walcott had just overcome his arch-nemesis, Charles, twice in his last two fights. Now, does anyone, when discussing Charles' legacy, say "Charles was beaten by a past-prime Walcott"? I'm afraid not. Those two wins were the biggest victories Walcott ever put together, and they were his last two fights before he fought Marciano, only a few months prior. Ridiculous to think he was in his prime? No, to the contrary, I see no reason to think he suddenly became an old, washed-up fighter the night he faced Marciano simply to fulfill the detractors' attempts at discrediting him. Walcott was hard as nails when he fought Rocky, he was fast, sharp, confident, focused, and in no way fought like an old man. Many historians and Ringsiders consider this one of or if not walcotts best preformances of his career. IMO it was walcotts 2nd best preformance on film, the first one being the louis robbery. walcott never let his hands go as much as he did in the marciano fight, nor did he ever display the aggresiveness he showed in the marciano fight before


And if you're going to say that Walcott must've been way past it because he was in his last fights, I guess Lewis must've been way past it when he had what many consider to have been his peak performances against Rahman and Tyson, because clearly he's going to have about one more fight here and then retire. So he must've already been past his prime when he had his best fights. Using age or area of career is NOT a good way to guage someone's prime. Watch any tape of Marciano's first fight with Walcott. Walcott is fast, with a hard, driving jab, is clearly in excellent physical condition, doesn't visibly get tired even going into the late rounds, throws lots of punches, and is throwing shots with excellent punching form. Walcott was clearly on top of his game for his first fight with Marciano.




u say walcott was in his prime when he lost to joey maxim, yet you say walcott wasnt in his prime when he lost to rocky marciano. so are u implying joey maxim would beat rocky marciano? maxim gave walcott 3 closely contested fights that could have gone either way.

are u also saying elmer ray was a better fighter than marciano since he beat a "supposedley prime walcott"?



but fine since u say walcotts prime was 1945-48, i say to you if a old joe louis, joey maxim, elmer ray could beat jersey joe walcott then so could a peak rocky marciano.


there that ends it

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial has been degrading marcianos opposition for years now. he refuses to believe walcott was near his best on sept 22 1952.

there is no reason to believe charles was faded. he was 29 years old, hadnt lost in 3 years, WAS HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, and was coming off a wide decision over walcott just 5 months prior. charles was in excellent shape.




How do you think Walcott had slipped so much since the Charles fights? Walcott had just taken his two wins over Charles less than a year before he fought Marciano. He was in tip-top shape for the Marciano fight, focused, confident, and determined, and his performance reflected it.
If you believe it is possible Walcott had started slipping for the first Marciano fight, then Clearly he was not far past his prime, as the third Charles fight, just a year before his fight with Marciano, was quite likely the best performance of his career, in which he won nearly every round and then flattened Charles with one incredible punch. His prime years unquestionably came much later in his career than they do in most fighters' careers- 38 years old for Walcott is MUCH different than 38 years old for most other fighters.

He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.

You make it sound like I'm the only person in the world who thinks Marciano fought old or past it fighters. Many people believe this because its true.

If you think having 6 fights in 8 months isn't hard you really are showing what little you known about boxing, These were not quick wins for Charles, W14TKO, W15UD, WKO11, W10TKO, W15UD, W15UD thats 80 rounds of boxing. Thats a hard schedule for any fighter.

Walcott won the title on his 5th attempt. He had boxed 70 odd fights and for 22 years when he faced Marciano at nearly 39 years of age. To suggest he was at his peak is ridiculous but you have to say that to justify Marcianos "great" record.

actually saying walcott was in his prime vs marciano rather than vs maxim, ray helps walcotts case.

in ur prime, would u rather lose to marciano or would u rather lose to maxim and ray?



u say walcott was 38 years old, but walcott was as good a fighter as ever at 38. FILM BACKS THIS UP.



let me ask you, do you think a 1945-48 walcott beats marciano?



u say walcott was in his prime in 1945 and 46, but have u ever seen film of walcott in 45-46? i bet not cause none exists.

charles was near his peak in 1951 when he lost to jersey joe walcott. this was the same jersey joe walcott who fought marciano.


controversial has probably never seen walcott vs charles III or marciano vs walcott I cause anyone whos seen those fights knows walcott was at his best form for those fights.


let me ask u controversial, what on film suggests walcott was not in his prime vs marciano? was he heavier than usual? did he lack stamina? did he look slower? was he less aggresive?

You make it sound like I'm the only person in the world who thinks Marciano fought old or past it fighters. Many people believe this because its true.

most knowleagable historians i know admit walcott was at/near his best when he fought marciano.


u REFUSE to admit walcott was even near his best when he fought rocky

walcott was a better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott was a better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46

If thats what you believe so be it. I don't think he was.

As stated Charles was fighting his 7th fight in close succession, and fought a lot of rounds in doing so. Walcott got him at the right time. That doesn't mean Walcott was 'hitting' his prime, he just got him at the right time. Charles easily beat Walcott before and Louis had stopped Walcott and he was also outpointed by Layne.

Marciano had a great punch. He could finish almost anyone with one punch. But he could also be outboxed and was on several occassions. Could Walcott have beaten him, yes of course he could, he got caught with a great punch and lost. On another day he could have coasted to a points win over Marciano.

As to with Charles, on his day I hink he would have beaten Marciano. Archie Moore also believed this and he should know he fought both.

walcott beat charles only 5 months after he lost to charles. are u telling me walcott beat a differen version of charles who was only 5 months older? I SHOULD SAY NOT.


walcott was defintley the better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46. lets look at his record

- walcott lost and fought 3 close decisions with joey maxim, an opponent nowhere near the level of a marciano or charles

- walcott lost to elmer ray, not in the same league as a charles or marciano

- walcott fought 10 even rounds with bivins, not in the same league as a charles or marciano



yet in 1951, walcott knocked out ezzard charles. a 1951 ezzard charles was a MUCH better opponent than a joey maxim, elmer ray, jimmy bivins.

in 1952, walcott beat charles AGAIN and then nearly beat rocky marciano.



going by his record, he was a better fighter in 1951-52.




if u watch the film, walcott is in his peak form vs marciano I and charles III

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott beat charles only 5 months after he lost to charles. are u telling me walcott beat a differen version of charles who was only 5 months older? I SHOULD SAY NOT.


walcott was defintley the better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46. lets look at his record

- walcott lost and fought 3 close decisions with joey maxim, an opponent nowhere near the level of a marciano or charles

- walcott lost to elmer ray, not in the same league as a charles or marciano

- walcott fought 10 even rounds with bivins, not in the same league as a charles or marciano



yet in 1951, walcott knocked out ezzard charles. a 1951 ezzard charles was a MUCH better opponent than a joey maxim, elmer ray, jimmy bivins.

in 1952, walcott beat charles AGAIN and then nearly beat rocky marciano.



going by his record, he was a better fighter in 1951-52.




if u watch the film, walcott is in his peak form vs marciano I and charles III

Walcotts best years were 1945-1948. He beat Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma and others.

He lost a disputed decision to Elmer Ray, who was on a 48 fight winning streak (with 43kos) and a 17 fight KO run. Then he lost to the great Maxim, by a disputed decision. He beat them both in the return. Then he beat Louis, although without getting the decision.

These were Walcotts best years. This was 5 years BEFORE fighting Marciano. Of course he was stopped by Louis, outpointed by Charles and Layne in the years before fighting Marciano.

When he fought Marciano he was still a good fighter, but not as good as he was 5 years earlier. Lets not forget Walcott had been stopped several times before so his chin was hardly granite. He was still good enough to be the first man to floor Marciano and was winning on all scorecards going into the 13th round.

Its not a surprise he was outboxing Marciano, others not as good as Walcott had done it before, Lowry and Lastarze. Even Louis won rounds against Marciano, and Louis was nowhere near the fighter he once was.

He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.[/quote]

I've never heard Joey Maxim called limited opposition before, you really know your stuff. He was so limited he won the light-heavyweight title in his very next fight and later stopped some bloke called Sugar Ray Robinson (whoever he is?)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial has been degrading marcianos opposition for years now. he refuses to believe walcott was near his best on sept 22 1952.

there is no reason to believe charles was faded. he was 29 years old, hadnt lost in 3 years, WAS HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, and was coming off a wide decision over walcott just 5 months prior. charles was in excellent shape.




How do you think Walcott had slipped so much since the Charles fights? Walcott had just taken his two wins over Charles less than a year before he fought Marciano. He was in tip-top shape for the Marciano fight, focused, confident, and determined, and his performance reflected it.
If you believe it is possible Walcott had started slipping for the first Marciano fight, then Clearly he was not far past his prime, as the third Charles fight, just a year before his fight with Marciano, was quite likely the best performance of his career, in which he won nearly every round and then flattened Charles with one incredible punch. His prime years unquestionably came much later in his career than they do in most fighters' careers- 38 years old for Walcott is MUCH different than 38 years old for most other fighters.

He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.

I've never heard Joey Maxim called limited opposition before, you really know your stuff. He was so limited he won the light-heavyweight title in his very next fight and later stopped some bloke called Sugar Ray Robinson (whoever he is?)

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial has been degrading marcianos opposition for years now. he refuses to believe walcott was near his best on sept 22 1952.

there is no reason to believe charles was faded. he was 29 years old, hadnt lost in 3 years, WAS HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, and was coming off a wide decision over walcott just 5 months prior. charles was in excellent shape.




How do you think Walcott had slipped so much since the Charles fights? Walcott had just taken his two wins over Charles less than a year before he fought Marciano. He was in tip-top shape for the Marciano fight, focused, confident, and determined, and his performance reflected it.
If you believe it is possible Walcott had started slipping for the first Marciano fight, then Clearly he was not far past his prime, as the third Charles fight, just a year before his fight with Marciano, was quite likely the best performance of his career, in which he won nearly every round and then flattened Charles with one incredible punch. His prime years unquestionably came much later in his career than they do in most fighters' careers- 38 years old for Walcott is MUCH different than 38 years old for most other fighters.

He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.

I've never heard Joey Maxim called limited opposition before, you really know your stuff. He was so limited he won the light-heavyweight title in his very next fight and later stopped some bloke called Sugar Ray Robinson (whoever he is?)

hahahah maxim stopped robinson?


i think u mean HEAT stopped robinson




are u honestly comparing joey maxim as a heavyweight to rocky marciano?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial has been degrading marcianos opposition for years now. he refuses to believe walcott was near his best on sept 22 1952.

there is no reason to believe charles was faded. he was 29 years old, hadnt lost in 3 years, WAS HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, and was coming off a wide decision over walcott just 5 months prior. charles was in excellent shape.




How do you think Walcott had slipped so much since the Charles fights? Walcott had just taken his two wins over Charles less than a year before he fought Marciano. He was in tip-top shape for the Marciano fight, focused, confident, and determined, and his performance reflected it.
If you believe it is possible Walcott had started slipping for the first Marciano fight, then Clearly he was not far past his prime, as the third Charles fight, just a year before his fight with Marciano, was quite likely the best performance of his career, in which he won nearly every round and then flattened Charles with one incredible punch. His prime years unquestionably came much later in his career than they do in most fighters' careers- 38 years old for Walcott is MUCH different than 38 years old for most other fighters.
o ya i mean easy 6 fights vs old gus lesnevich, ordinary pat valentino, old lee oma, unranked freddie beshore, 175lb joey maxim. THESE ARE ALL GRUELLING FIGHTS RIGHT? i mean its not like charles easily dominated these guys. charles did not easily beat walcott before, it was a close fight and walcott staggered charles many times see (round 4, 9, 11, 15)



very exhaustive yea im sure 6 easy fights vs limited opposition is exhaustive.

I've never heard Joey Maxim called limited opposition before, you really know your stuff. He was so limited he won the light-heavyweight title in his very next fight and later stopped some bloke called Sugar Ray Robinson (whoever he is?)

hahahah maxim stopped robinson?


i think u mean HEAT stopped robinson




are u honestly comparing joey maxim as a heavyweight to rocky marciano?

Of course not. It made me laugh that you called Joey Maxim limited opposition.......come on, impress me with your knowledge again, I can hardly wait.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott beat charles only 5 months after he lost to charles. are u telling me walcott beat a differen version of charles who was only 5 months older? I SHOULD SAY NOT.


walcott was defintley the better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46. lets look at his record

- walcott lost and fought 3 close decisions with joey maxim, an opponent nowhere near the level of a marciano or charles

- walcott lost to elmer ray, not in the same league as a charles or marciano

- walcott fought 10 even rounds with bivins, not in the same league as a charles or marciano



yet in 1951, walcott knocked out ezzard charles. a 1951 ezzard charles was a MUCH better opponent than a joey maxim, elmer ray, jimmy bivins.

in 1952, walcott beat charles AGAIN and then nearly beat rocky marciano.



going by his record, he was a better fighter in 1951-52.




if u watch the film, walcott is in his peak form vs marciano I and charles III

Walcotts best years were 1945-1948. He beat Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma and others.

He lost a disputed decision to Elmer Ray, who was on a 48 fight winning streak (with 43kos) and a 17 fight KO run. Then he lost to the great Maxim, by a disputed decision. He beat them both in the return. Then he beat Louis, although without getting the decision.

These were Walcotts best years. This was 5 years BEFORE fighting Marciano. Of course he was stopped by Louis, outpointed by Charles and Layne in the years before fighting Marciano.

When he fought Marciano he was still a good fighter, but not as good as he was 5 years earlier. Lets not forget Walcott had been stopped several times before so his chin was hardly granite. He was still good enough to be the first man to floor Marciano and was winning on all scorecards going into the 13th round.

Its not a surprise he was outboxing Marciano, others not as good as Walcott had done it before, Lowry and Lastarze. Even Louis won rounds against Marciano, and Louis was nowhere near the fighter he once was.

Walcotts best years were 1945-1948. He beat Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma and others.

walcotts best years were 47-52 he beat louis, charles 2x, harold johnson, and nearly beat rocky marciano.

THAT IS NOT AN OPINION, ITS A FACT!

He lost a disputed decision to Elmer Ray, who was on a 48 fight winning streak (with 43kos) and a 17 fight KO run. Then he lost to the great Maxim, by a disputed decision. He beat them both in the return. Then he beat Louis, although without getting the decision.

the great joey maxim? were talking the heavyweight division buddy, and maxim was not a great heavyweight. if joey maxim could beat walcott in 46, i hate to think what the likes of rocky marciano would do to a 46 walcott.



disputed? actually it was a close fight that many think ray won.

new york times scored it " 6 rounds to 4 in favor of elmer ray"

elmer ray was a puncher swarmer who fought out of a crouch A LOT LIKE THE ROCK. if elmer could beat walcott in 1946, so could the similiar marciano.

Of course he was stopped by Louis, outpointed by Charles and Layne in the years before fighting Marciano.

- walcott was handily beating louis before getting knocked out


- he also TWICE BEAT CHARLES and this was all less than a year away before facing marciano.

When he fought Marciano he was still a good fighter, but not as good as he was 5 years earlier.

in the first marciano fight, he was as good as ever

Lets not forget Walcott had been stopped several times before so his chin was hardly granite.

walcott was only knocked out twice in his prime, by louis and marciano.



i dont hold walcotts KO losses pre 1944 against him. if u do, then u dont know what ur talking about.

Its not a surprise he was outboxing Marciano

dont forget marciano WAS BLINDED FOR 3 ROUNDS!

others not as good as Walcott had done it before, Lowry and Lastarze

lowry did not outbox marciano. U KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LOWRY FIGHT. i talked to people who were LIVE at the fight, they said thats all lowry did was fight to survive, he hardly threw any punches.


lastarza was a world class boxer, one of the best heavyweights never to win a title . LOOK WHAT ROCKY DID TO ROLAND IN THE REMATCH!



i might add, rocky was very green when he fought lowry and lastarza(1st time)

Even Louis won rounds against Marciano, and Louis was nowhere near the fighter he once was.

louis won 2 rounds out of the first 7. louis may have been far past it, but he was still a formidable fighter with the best jab in the division. marciano still pounded and knocked louis out cold.




don't forget a master boxer great fighter like ezzard charles was only able to win 5 rounds vs marciano out of 15.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote: I've never heard Joey Maxim called limited opposition before, you really know your stuff. He was so limited he won the light-heavyweight title in his very next fight and later stopped some bloke called Sugar Ray Robinson (whoever he is?)

hahahah maxim stopped robinson?


i think u mean HEAT stopped robinson




are u honestly comparing joey maxim as a heavyweight to rocky marciano?

Of course not. It made me laugh that you called Joey Maxim limited opposition.......come on, impress me with your knowledge again, I can hardly wait.

tell me why marciano cant beat a 1946 jersey joe walcott if joey maxim can?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:





hahahah maxim stopped robinson?


i think u mean HEAT stopped robinson




are u honestly comparing joey maxim as a heavyweight to rocky marciano?

Of course not. It made me laugh that you called Joey Maxim limited opposition.......come on, impress me with your knowledge again, I can hardly wait.

tell me why marciano cant beat a 1946 jersey joe walcott if joey maxim can?

I'm not saying Marciano couldn't, he stood a punchers chance with anyone. Maxim was a great fighter, and although he beat Walcott it was very close and many thought Walcott won. Thats not a disgrace. Walcott beat Maxim in the two return fights.

That doesn't get away from the fact that Walcotts best fights were a good 5 years before he beat Marciano.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote: Of course not. It made me laugh that you called Joey Maxim limited opposition.......come on, impress me with your knowledge again, I can hardly wait.

tell me why marciano cant beat a 1946 jersey joe walcott if joey maxim can?

I'm not saying Marciano couldn't, he stood a punchers chance with anyone. Maxim was a great fighter, and although he beat Walcott it was very close and many thought Walcott won. Thats not a disgrace. Walcott beat Maxim in the two return fights.

That doesn't get away from the fact that Walcotts best fights were a good 5 years before he beat Marciano.

no they werent.



walcotts three best fights on film are


1. joe louis I
2. rocky marciano I
3. ezzard charles III

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott beat charles only 5 months after he lost to charles. are u telling me walcott beat a differen version of charles who was only 5 months older? I SHOULD SAY NOT.


walcott was defintley the better fighter in 51-52 than in 45-46. lets look at his record

- walcott lost and fought 3 close decisions with joey maxim, an opponent nowhere near the level of a marciano or charles

- walcott lost to elmer ray, not in the same league as a charles or marciano

- walcott fought 10 even rounds with bivins, not in the same league as a charles or marciano



yet in 1951, walcott knocked out ezzard charles. a 1951 ezzard charles was a MUCH better opponent than a joey maxim, elmer ray, jimmy bivins.

in 1952, walcott beat charles AGAIN and then nearly beat rocky marciano.



going by his record, he was a better fighter in 1951-52.




if u watch the film, walcott is in his peak form vs marciano I and charles III

Walcotts best years were 1945-1948. He beat Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma and others.

He lost a disputed decision to Elmer Ray, who was on a 48 fight winning streak (with 43kos) and a 17 fight KO run. Then he lost to the great Maxim, by a disputed decision. He beat them both in the return. Then he beat Louis, although without getting the decision.

These were Walcotts best years. This was 5 years BEFORE fighting Marciano. Of course he was stopped by Louis, outpointed by Charles and Layne in the years before fighting Marciano.

When he fought Marciano he was still a good fighter, but not as good as he was 5 years earlier. Lets not forget Walcott had been stopped several times before so his chin was hardly granite. He was still good enough to be the first man to floor Marciano and was winning on all scorecards going into the 13th round.

Its not a surprise he was outboxing Marciano, others not as good as Walcott had done it before, Lowry and Lastarze. Even Louis won rounds against Marciano, and Louis was nowhere near the fighter he once was.

Walcotts best years were 1945-1948. He beat Baksi, Murray, Shepherd, Bivins, Oma and others.

walcotts best years were 47-52 he beat louis, charles 2x, harold johnson, and nearly beat rocky marciano.

THAT IS NOT AN OPINION, ITS A FACT!

He lost a disputed decision to Elmer Ray, who was on a 48 fight winning streak (with 43kos) and a 17 fight KO run. Then he lost to the great Maxim, by a disputed decision. He beat them both in the return. Then he beat Louis, although without getting the decision.

the great joey maxim? were talking the heavyweight division buddy, and maxim was not a great heavyweight. if joey maxim could beat walcott in 46, i hate to think what the likes of rocky marciano would do to a 46 walcott.



disputed? actually it was a close fight that many think ray won.

new york times scored it " 6 rounds to 4 in favor of elmer ray"

elmer ray was a puncher swarmer who fought out of a crouch A LOT LIKE THE ROCK. if elmer could beat walcott in 1946, so could the similiar marciano.

Of course he was stopped by Louis, outpointed by Charles and Layne in the years before fighting Marciano.

- walcott was handily beating louis before getting knocked out


- he also TWICE BEAT CHARLES and this was all less than a year away before facing marciano.

When he fought Marciano he was still a good fighter, but not as good as he was 5 years earlier.

in the first marciano fight, he was as good as ever

Lets not forget Walcott had been stopped several times before so his chin was hardly granite.

walcott was only knocked out twice in his prime, by louis and marciano.



i dont hold walcotts KO losses pre 1944 against him. if u do, then u dont know what ur talking about.

Its not a surprise he was outboxing Marciano

dont forget marciano WAS BLINDED FOR 3 ROUNDS!

others not as good as Walcott had done it before, Lowry and Lastarze

lowry did not outbox marciano. U KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LOWRY FIGHT. i talked to people who were LIVE at the fight, they said thats all lowry did was fight to survive, he hardly threw any punches.


lastarza was a world class boxer, one of the best heavyweights never to win a title . LOOK WHAT ROCKY DID TO ROLAND IN THE REMATCH!



i might add, rocky was very green when he fought lowry and lastarza(1st time)

Even Louis won rounds against Marciano, and Louis was nowhere near the fighter he once was.

louis won 2 rounds out of the first 7. louis may have been far past it, but he was still a formidable fighter with the best jab in the division. marciano still pounded and knocked louis out cold.




don't forget a master boxer great fighter like ezzard charles was only able to win 5 rounds vs marciano out of 15.

You can sure make lots of excuses up I'll give you that. Maxim was a great fighter. He beat several heavyweights, including Walcott, Bivins, Curtis Shepherd and others. He also had a great chin. So I guess that totally discredits Marciano beating a 42-year old light-heavyweight Archie Moore then?

Walcott was stopped by Louis, yes he was in front but he was stopped....I'm not sure what point your trying to make with that comment?

So Lowry managed to lose a close decision to Marciano by holding on and not throwing any punches.........now thats clever.

Walcott was good enough to give Marciano a tough fight but he was not as good as he once was.

So I guess that totally discredits Marciano beating a 42-year old light-heavyweight Archie Moore then?

moore was 38, not 42. archie was also the # 1 heavyweight contender who had cleaned out all the top heavyweight contenders. archie was also FAR BETTER than joey maxim at light-H and heavyweight.

So Lowry managed to lose a close decision to Marciano by holding on and not throwing any punches.........now thats clever.

marciano was horribly green, he was nowhere near at his best in 1949.

Walcott was good enough to give Marciano a tough fight but he was not as good as he once was.

I disagree

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

So I guess that totally discredits Marciano beating a 42-year old light-heavyweight Archie Moore then?

moore was 38, not 42. archie was also the # 1 heavyweight contender who had cleaned out all the top heavyweight contenders. archie was also FAR BETTER than joey maxim at light-H and heavyweight.

So Lowry managed to lose a close decision to Marciano by holding on and not throwing any punches.........now thats clever.

marciano was horribly green, he was nowhere near at his best in 1949.

Walcott was good enough to give Marciano a tough fight but he was not as good as he once was.

I disagree

Moore was thought to be several years older that he said he was.....his own mother I believe even contradicted his year of birth.

The who thing about Maxim was that Charles had an intensive bunch of fights....6 in 8 months. Thats hard for any fighter. Walcott got Charles at the right time, he wasn't as sharp as he used to be and was physically drained after fighting 80 rounds in the previous months.

Walcott fought and beat far better fighters in 1945-1948 than he ever did in 1952 / 1953. That gives you a big clue as to when his best years were. So if Walcotts prime was around the Marciano period surely he was have beaten Layne without any problems, but he didn't.

I guess you have another excuse for that though.

. Walcott got Charles at the right time, he wasn't as sharp as he used to be and was physically drained after fighting 80 rounds in the previous months.

thats bullshit, this was the same charles who 4 months earlier beat jersey joe walcott. he was as sharp as ever. walcott just brought his absolute A game with a perfect game plan




- it was found A LONG TIME AGO that archie was born in 1916 making him 38 when he fought marciano

Walcott fought and beat far better fighters in 1945-1948 than he ever did in 1952

walcott fought marciano and charles. both were better fighters than anyone he faced in 45-48 including a past his prime louis.

WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES.........


ezzard charles is FAR BETTER than any fighter he ever beat in 45-48.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

. Walcott got Charles at the right time, he wasn't as sharp as he used to be and was physically drained after fighting 80 rounds in the previous months.

thats bullshit, this was the same charles who 4 months earlier beat jersey joe walcott. he was as sharp as ever. walcott just brought his absolute A game with a perfect game plan




- it was found A LONG TIME AGO that archie was born in 1916 making him 38 when he fought marciano

Walcott fought and beat far better fighters in 1945-1948 than he ever did in 1952

walcott fought marciano and charles. both were better fighters than anyone he faced in 45-48 including a past his prime louis.

WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES.........


ezzard charles is FAR BETTER than any fighter he ever beat in 45-48.

So if Walcott was so great why did he lose to Layne, who drew his 2 previous fights against poor fighters.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

. Walcott got Charles at the right time, he wasn't as sharp as he used to be and was physically drained after fighting 80 rounds in the previous months.

thats bullshit, this was the same charles who 4 months earlier beat jersey joe walcott. he was as sharp as ever. walcott just brought his absolute A game with a perfect game plan




- it was found A LONG TIME AGO that archie was born in 1916 making him 38 when he fought marciano

Walcott fought and beat far better fighters in 1945-1948 than he ever did in 1952

walcott fought marciano and charles. both were better fighters than anyone he faced in 45-48 including a past his prime louis.

WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES.........


ezzard charles is FAR BETTER than any fighter he ever beat in 45-48.

So if Walcott was so great why did he lose to Layne, who drew his 2 previous fights against poor fighters.

regarding the walcott-layne fight, it was a simple case of an overweight(walcott weighing in over 200lb) and overconfident walcott taking a unproven prospect like rex layne lightly. layne at the time was 25-1 and considered a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. but i watched the fight, layne simply outworked walcott bullying walcott into the ropes and doing damage and better work on the inside. walcott did not let his hands go enough. it was a big upset. walcott took layne lightly and didnt train too hard(consider him coming in over 200lb) and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. however the fight was very close. however, walcott clearly did have an off night and its noticeable on film and I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch.

and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the post 1952 ruined layne that went on to lose a lot. the 50-52 layne was a lot better.


walcott was always inconsistent. however when walcott brought his A game, he was very tough to beat.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: thats bullshit, this was the same charles who 4 months earlier beat jersey joe walcott. he was as sharp as ever. walcott just brought his absolute A game with a perfect game plan




- it was found A LONG TIME AGO that archie was born in 1916 making him 38 when he fought marciano





walcott fought marciano and charles. both were better fighters than anyone he faced in 45-48 including a past his prime louis.

WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES.........


ezzard charles is FAR BETTER than any fighter he ever beat in 45-48.

So if Walcott was so great why did he lose to Layne, who drew his 2 previous fights against poor fighters.

regarding the walcott-layne fight, it was a simple case of an overweight(walcott weighing in over 200lb) and overconfident walcott taking a unproven prospect like rex layne lightly. layne at the time was 25-1 and considered a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. but i watched the fight, layne simply outworked walcott bullying walcott into the ropes and doing damage and better work on the inside. walcott did not let his hands go enough. it was a big upset. walcott took layne lightly and didnt train too hard(consider him coming in over 200lb) and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. however the fight was very close. however, walcott clearly did have an off night and its noticeable on film and I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch.

and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the post 1952 ruined layne that went on to lose a lot. the 50-52 layne was a lot better.


walcott was always inconsistent. however when walcott brought his A game, he was very tough to beat.

Walcott weighed only 2lbs less when he fought Marciano, hardly overweight when he fought Layne.

Walcott was very inconsistant, your right. You say he underestimated Layne, he also did Marciano, saying something like 'take my name out the record books if I can't beat this bum'.....maybe that means he never trained that hard for Marciano either !!!