BoxRec

this is the forgotten fight, and is largly over shadowed by the classic first fight which was a famous one and great one.

but whats ur thoughts on this bout, it seemed a very controversial ending at the time, but due to the weird ending no one gave marciano credit for the early knockout, but more wondered what happened to the walcott that fought for 13 ferocious actioned packed rounds. why the letdown??


- it was a clear knockdwon, it wass a very hard right uppercut from marciano which caught walcott squarely on the chin. the controversial part is walcott sat there looking like he was fine then when the ref said 10 walcott jumped up.

walcott said he blacked out from 7-10, and he looked over at his corner and they were giving him a bad count, and he popped up to late. but it was defintley a hard clean punch that landed.

- walcott said "i blacked out from 7-10, and when that happens to a fighter, u know its time to go." walcott always said he wanted to retire on top as well.


but perhaps do u think marciano should get more credit for this victory?

...look at the tape of the fight. walcott looks much older than he did in the first match...much older than the actual distance of time. when the bell rang in the first fight he went right after marciano and knocked him down and fought a hell of figght until he was kayoed. in the rematch he starts right out by bouncing away...looks as if he has no plan....and the punch by marciano was a good one. it's easier to see in three d...that's right...it was actually filmed in 3-D ....shown that way in just a few theatres....and the angle is better.

i think jersey joe knew he couldn't win before he got into the ring. how could her have improved on that stupendous performance he put on in the first fight.....and still got kayoed?

i don't think he dogged it...there are many who did...said he just sat down and counted the house while the referee counted the seconds....but i think he was stunned when he got up...he's standing right by the ropes and seems to fall into them ...but the distance is so short it isn't clear....and then came the talk about a fast count ..which he and his corner claimed...wrongly...and off to retirement.

fortunately the fight that is played the most is the first one...i which both fighters made into a great one.

It certainly appeared to be a good punch, but Walcott looked like he could have easily beaten the count. I've seen guys react like that before though. Jeff Harding in his second fight with Dennis Andries comes to mind.

Every time I look at Walcott up close I think of those rumors that he was actually something like 3 years older than his listed age. And no Brockton, that's not meant as a put down of Marciano, Foreman had great power into his 50's.

well if he was older, he sure didnt fight like he was older. he was 37,38 with legs of a 27 year old.

archie moore was probably 3-5 years younger than he was listed

Actually I don't think age makes that much difference. Before Hopkins v DeLaHoya, I listened to Burt Sugar on a radio show and he would not shut up about Hopkin's 40 yr old legs, don't know how many times he mentioned Hopkin's old legs, and why that was the reason he liked Oscar to win. Anybody in the fight game as long as Sugar really should no better. 40 yr old legs in a dedicated guy like Hopkins can be every bit as conditioned as a 25 yr old's.