BoxRec

Prime for Prime, who wins it?

Walcott, easily. Far too fast of foot to be hit by Rahmans haymaker and powerful enough to keep him passive. Easy win.

JJW by un dec

Tomasino wrote:Walcott, easily. Far too fast of foot to be hit by Rahmans haymaker and powerful enough to keep him passive. Easy win.

Here, here!

And that's by KO if Rahman is on the Krispy Kremes.

Rahman wouldn't be able to find Jersey.

See Jimmy Young vs Ron Lyle for reference but more so.

I think it would be an excellent fight to watch, with Joe taking a wide decision.

I'm in agreement with most of the posts here. Jersey Joe by Unanimous Decision.

Rahman would win. He wasn't a real good boxer, but neither was Walcott who was KO'd by the 184-pound Marciano for his 17th and 18th losses. Abe Simon was nothing but a big, clumsy target, but he knocked Walcott out. He was too big and strong for him. Joe Louis was a drinker and carouser who faded early. He was completely shot when he beat Walcott twice. A biography documents that Louis was losing his mental grip and couldn't even win at table tennis anymore, something he was good at as a youth. The smaller Ezzard Charles outboxed Walcott in their first 2 fights, but the early inroads of ALS---a nerve disease that eventually killed him---beat Charles in their 3rd and 4th fights.

Walcott was a GREAT boxer!!

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Walcott was a GREAT boxer!!

exactly

Keko wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Walcott was a GREAT boxer!!

exactly

True that...Bloody Legend in my book I loved his move's he was so tricky was a OLD MAN before given his chance

It's ok, Kalan fades in and out like a bad FM station......sometimes the signal is strong....and sometimes it fades to a harsh white noise.

He know's JJW was a good boxer. He musta forgot.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Walcott was a GREAT boxer!!

How do you figure??? By what stretch was Walcott a great boxer??? He lost so many fights to mediocre boxers it's ridiculous.. He beat slow and punchless Light Heavyweight Joey Maxim by SD - a little guy who couldn't hit.. He lost to terrible boxers like Abe Simon.. Walcott got plenty of shots at the Heavyweight Title, but didn't win until his 5th shot.. The timing was right when he fought Ezzard Charles for the 3rd time, after losing his first 2 fights with Charles. Ezz was slowly losing it and fading out... Prime Rahman would have been too big, tall, and strong for Walcott... He won about as many fights as Walcott but lost half as many. Rahman lost most of his losing matchups to bigger, stronger and better athletes than Walcott ever fought.

Nobody's perfect.

Skill sets ain't the same. Jersey Joe > Rahman any day

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:

Keko wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:Walcott was a GREAT boxer!!

exactly

True that...Bloody Legend in my book I loved his move's he was so tricky was a OLD MAN before given his chance

Great footwork had.

Unfortunately he accepted the fight without proper training and often just for the money. This makes the cost of certain defeat. Similar to Ezzard later.
He was certainly a great boxer


If someone belongs in the top 15-20 all-time heavyweight then it must have been a great boxer. This is a logical.
It's not about who has more lbs and who could beat anyone because it was about the skills and Jersey is that a lot of the advantages of Rahman.

Walcott really had no management early in his career. that is when most of defeats came.

Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.
Many modern fans don't seem to grasp this.

Most of the other losses came against people like Charles, Louis, and Marciano. He went 2-6 against those three. He almost beat Marciano the first time and should have got the decision against Louis the first time. Easily could have been 4-4. Rahman probably goes 0-8.

Walcott was much faster in both foot and hand speed, and was stronger.
Walcott was not perfect, but near his best he wins this easily.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott really had no management early in his career. that is when most of defeats came.

Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.
Many modern fans don't seem to grasp this.

Most of the other losses came against people like Charles, Louis, and Marciano. He went 2-6 against those three. He almost beat Marciano the first time and should have got the decision against Louis the first time. Easily could have been 4-4. Rahman probably goes 0-8.

Walcott was much faster in both foot and hand speed, and was stronger.
Walcott was not perfect, but near his best he wins this easily.

Hasim has been in with Lewis and was a sparring partner for Tyson on occastions which would be something Walcott couldn't put a dent in. Rahman would be much bigger and stronger against Walcott.Rahman by knockout quickly..Lewis style.

malice69 wrote:Hasim has been in with Lewis and was a sparring partner for Tyson on occastions which would be something Walcott couldn't put a dent in. Rahman would be much bigger and stronger against Walcott.Rahman by knockout quickly..Lewis style.

Walcott and his experience will have NO problem with Hasim who he fought before or sparred would have had NO influence on the end result of this match up he [Walcott] would have shown Hasim the shuffle off to Buffalo and bamboozled him the more I think about it the easier Jersey wins:OhYes:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott really had no management early in his career. that is when most of defeats came.

Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.
Many modern fans don't seem to grasp this.

Most of the other losses came against people like Charles, Louis, and Marciano. He went 2-6 against those three. He almost beat Marciano the first time and should have got the decision against Louis the first time. Easily could have been 4-4. Rahman probably goes 0-8.

Walcott was much faster in both foot and hand speed, and was stronger.
Walcott was not perfect, but near his best he wins this easily.

Excellent post Especially this line: Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.

Rahman is much too slow for Jersey Joe. I'd expect JJ to win a conclusive UD over Rahman.

I know people will talk about the Lewis KO, but Walcott was much lighter on his feet & slick at punch evading that Lennox was, who became very stiff and rigid toward the end of his career.

Boxing Writer wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott really had no management early in his career. that is when most of defeats came.

Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.
Many modern fans don't seem to grasp this.

Most of the other losses came against people like Charles, Louis, and Marciano. He went 2-6 against those three. He almost beat Marciano the first time and should have got the decision against Louis the first time. Easily could have been 4-4. Rahman probably goes 0-8.

Walcott was much faster in both foot and hand speed, and was stronger.
Walcott was not perfect, but near his best he wins this easily.

Excellent post Especially this line: Had he fought in Rahman's situation he would have started out 20-0 like all the prospects now do. If Rahman would have been in Walcott's era without management he would have had a ton of losses.

You guys are spouting ridiculous nonsense... You're making stuff up in fact... Walcott was matched very easy to get him very easy wins...but he still lost a lot... Walcott lost to Billy Kitchell who had 1 win in his previous 10 fights... He got knocked out by soft chinned Light Heavyweight, Tiger Jack Fox... In his 40th fight he lost to Johnny Allen who was 11-14... In his 20th fight he fought a guy making his pro debut... In his 8th and 10th fights he fought guys who had 1 win each... In his 27th fight he was matched with a guy who was 2-1.. Ezzard Charles was essentially a Light Heavyweight, and Walcott beat few quality Heavyweights of the caliber that Rahman fought.

In fact, Rahman was matched tougher than Walcott throughout his career...beating Tervor Berbick, Ross Puritty, Obed Sullivan, Corrie Sanders, Lennox Lewis, Kali Meehan, and Monte Barrett.. He was also matched with (but lost to) David Tua, Wladimir Klitschko, Alexander Povetkin, Oleg Maskaev, Evander Holyfield, and John Ruiz...

That's a list of opponents in size, strength, and ability that Walcott can't come close to matching. Rahman beat more quality big Heavyweights than Walcott ever did. Size and strength matters. Take 3 fights between 4 quality fighters who risked fighting larger and stronger opponents: Dick Tiger vs Bob Foster vs Joe Frazier vs George Foreman. The 3 smaller matchups in those fights were obliterated. Like Primo Carnera beating Tommy Loughran, somewhat inept but very large and powerful boxers can often beat superb but smaller ones who happens to lack punching power and strength.

Crease wrote:Rahman is much too slow for Jersey Joe. I'd expect JJ to win a conclusive UD over Rahman.

I know people will talk about the Lewis KO, but Walcott was much lighter on his feet & slick at punch evading that Lennox was, who became very stiff and rigid toward the end of his career.

I agree completely

That's why Walcott was knocked out and beaten so many times, right???? ... Beaten by Light Heavyweights and people with losing records who you never heard of like the famous Johnny Allen.. Walcott was wide open and chinny. He was pretty damned hittable for a top ranked fighter.. Rahman had his problems, and that's why he lost so many fights -- but Walcott lost twice as many.

That's why Walcott was knocked out and beaten so many times, right???? ... Beaten by Light Heavyweights and people with losing records who you never heard of like the famous Johnny Allen.. Walcott was wide open and chinny. He was pretty damned hittable for a top ranked fighter.. Rahman had his problems, and that's why he lost so many fights -- but Walcott lost twice as many.