BoxRec

A prime Jersey Joe Walcott against a prime Mike Tyson.


What advantages does Jersey Joe have over Mike?


What advantages does Mike have over Jersey Joe?


What do you see happening in this fight?


Who would win?



Why?

In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

Too big for Primo Carnera even??

evrenb wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

Too big for Primo Carnera even??

Iron Mike would've blown Primo Carnera. Piece of cake fight for him

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

But you seem to be making your judgement based on size which is odd as tyson was physically one of the smallest to date???? (not talking weight only)

As great as Jersey Joe was, I can't see how he beats Tyson.

Tyson was faster, stronger & much more powerful.

Jersey Joe had the edge in boxing skills, but I don't think that would have been enough to fend off Tyson.

He could frustrate Tyson momentarily, but it would only have been a matter of time before Iron Mike leveled him.

Tyson seems a little underrated these days which is surprising considering that in his prime most people were in agreement that he wasn't far from being the greatest ever !!

littlepug wrote:Tyson seems a little underrated these days which is surprising considering that in his prime most people were in agreement that he wasn't far from being the greatest ever !!

i think it's a cultural thing as most brits think he was brilliant and americans that he wasn't .

stevedoc wrote:

littlepug wrote:Tyson seems a little underrated these days which is surprising considering that in his prime most people were in agreement that he wasn't far from being the greatest ever !!

i think it's a cultural thing as most brits think he was brilliant and americans that he wasn't .

I think he was incred-ible.... But no man is invincible I guess.

Just a side note: How is that Tyson didn't have a bigger upper body, had skinner legs, was shorter, was less defined, yet outweighed Walcott by about 20 pounds?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Just a side note: How is that Tyson didn't have a bigger upper body, had skinner legs, was shorter, was less defined, yet outweighed Walcott by about 20 pounds?

#I would say Tyson was stockier - heavier chest, bigger around the thighs and butt imo

Tyson all day.

evrenb wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

Too big for Primo Carnera even??

evrenb wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

But you seem to be making your judgement based on size which is odd as tyson was physically one of the smallest to date???? (not talking weight only)

exposed again elmersalsa

It's kind of a funny question because it's hard to think of two guys whose primes were so vastly separated in their lives. If you think of Mike Tyson's prime as being say from Marvis Frazier to Buster Douglas well that was when he was 20-24 years old. A terrific four year run.
Walcott was a good fighter at that age, but had trouble with good fighters then much less Tyson.

Walcott, however, beat Ezzard Charles for the HW championship of the world when he was 37 a time in which Tyson was mostly shot.

So I think either of them would have beat the other guy in his prime, if the other guy was the same age. But if they both fought in their prime Walcott would have looked like he was old enough to be Tyson's father.

I would have loved to see a prime Jersey Joe fight I suspect there would have been plenty doing this to him probably not many people around today that even seen him on film fight when he was younger most of his big fight's were fought when he was in his early/mid/late 30's
In my view Jersey Joe would climb off the canvas in round 2 and round 3 to give Tyson fits in the second half of the 15 rounder but the early onslaught from Tyson earns him a close majority dec................

elmersalsa wrote:

evrenb wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:In my view, the great Mike Tyson destroys every single heavyweight in history before the great Sonny Liston era. He would be too big

Too big for Primo Carnera even??

Iron Mike would've blown Primo Carnera. Piece of cake fight for him

Well... blow me down...

Tyson's explosiveness would be Walcott's undoing. He would lose by third round knockout.

DaveyMac wrote:It's kind of a funny question because it's hard to think of two guys whose primes were so vastly separated in their lives. If you think of Mike Tyson's prime as being say from Marvis Frazier to Buster Douglas well that was when he was 20-24 years old. A terrific four year run.
Walcott was a good fighter at that age, but had trouble with good fighters then much less Tyson.

Walcott, however, beat Ezzard Charles for the HW championship of the world when he was 37 a time in which Tyson was mostly shot.

So I think either of them would have beat the other guy in his prime, if the other guy was the same age. But if they both fought in their prime Walcott would have looked like he was old enough to be Tyson's father.

That's a great angle! There won't be many heavyweight champs who at 37 would be able to handle a 37 year old Jersey Joe Walcott.

I don't think we'll ever see a heavyweight aged 41-45 that could handle Foreman at the same age.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Just a side note: How is that Tyson didn't have a bigger upper body, had skinner legs, was shorter, was less defined, yet outweighed Walcott by about 20 pounds?

You're blind as an elderly bat Ambler... That's like asking why Sonny Liston didn't have a bigger upper body and had skinnier legs than Floyd Patterson.

Mike Tyson had a MUCH bigger upper body than Walcott... much bigger arms and legs... and even made the 212-pound Michael Spinks look like a waif.

Walcott weighed as light as 158 in his career, but Tyson weighed over 200 pounds since he was 16 years old... Michael Spinks was the Undefeated Lineal Heavyweight Champion and undefeated for his entire career -- and weighing a solid 212 he couldn't move Tyson with anything... In fact, At the precise instant the fight ended -- both Spinks and Tyson threw right hands simultaneously.. Spinks's didn't do sh!t to Tyson.. But Tyson's right hander drove Little Mikey under the bottom rope like he was hit with a wrecking ball.. Before Tyson started screwing around too much he was a pretty good Heavyweight.

Walcott would have lasted about 30 seconds max... He'd be at least as scared as Michael Spinks or Floyd Patterson were... It wouldn't be pretty.

Tuan_Jim wrote:I don't think we'll ever see a heavyweight aged 41-45 that could handle Foreman at the same age.

Larry Holmes would have wrecked him at 45... And if you're going to include the age 41 -- The Wladimir Klitschko who went 11 rounds with Anthony Joshua would have destroyed an ancient Foreman... Moorer beat the crap out of George for 10 -- but MM got lazy and complacent for a bit... MM couldn't afford to do that -- because he'd been a Light Heavyweight for the majority of his fights to that point, and his chin wasn't stronger than Michael Spinks'. A puncher flattens both.

Foreman lost to both Holyfield and Morrison at younger ages, but he got lucky versus doofus Moorer who wasn't paying attention... Klitschko didn't get lucky with Joshua -- but he showed much better skills, defense, and activity throughout in an ATG Heavyweight Title Fight.

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Just a side note: How is that Tyson didn't have a bigger upper body, had skinner legs, was shorter, was less defined, yet outweighed Walcott by about 20 pounds?

#I would say Tyson was stockier - heavier chest, bigger around the thighs and butt imo

Hard to imagine that gives Tyson a 20 pound weight advantage. Not sure about the chest. Didn't think about the but, I have to admit. Have always thought that Walcott had to have weighed more than the scales showed. Just look at the guy.

Don't know what you're looking at.. Look at those skinny legs of Walcott's.. And he wasn't stocky like Louis.. who weighed only 197 at his best vs Max Baer.

Max Baer had skinny legs also, but huge shoulders and chest -- and brawny mile long arms... Baer gave the impression of being big -- even though he wasn't that big... more so than any other Heavyweight I think... Baer gave the impression of being 215 even when he weighed 204 vs Schmeling.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Just a side note: How is that Tyson didn't have a bigger upper body, had skinner legs, was shorter, was less defined, yet outweighed Walcott by about 20 pounds?

#I would say Tyson was stockier - heavier chest, bigger around the thighs and butt imo

Hard to imagine that gives Tyson a 20 pound weight advantage. Not sure about the chest. Didn't think about the but, I have to admit. Have always thought that Walcott had to have weighed more than the scales showed. Just look at the guy.

There is a lot of weight on muscle around the thigh and butt area...

MIKE TYSON KO 2 JERSEY JOE WALCOTT