"I own all three Charles/Walcott fights, both his fights with Louis and both of his fights against Marciano, so i know his style pretty well. Trust me, I'm not the type that posts about a fighter and never seen him fight before. You make some valid points, but i can't agree at all with Joe being as or even close to as cautious as Hopkins. Now, take the first Marciano/Walcott fight for example. Early in that fight, you see an aggressive Walcott that came out and traded with a big puncher and completely abandoning his defense. "
No offense but you could of fooled me. Trade? In that oh so brief moment of aggression where a surprised Marciano doesn't even get a chance to throw anything back let alone land anything significant.
Walcott/Marciano I Rounds 1-2
Again, the whole point is that Hopkins never faced a relentless offensive force like Marciano anyway.
"I also remember him being hit a lot in his first fight with Charles. Since when has Hopkins traded punches with a puncher and fought with him on the inside taking punches? "
Charles certainly got to Walcott more than most but it wasn't because of a lack of caution on his part. Ezzard Charles was just the faster slicker fighter for the most part; only Roy Jones can come close to that offensive wizardy in regards to Hopkins opposition. Again this is pointless hair splitting; there isn't a signifcant measurable difference between the level of caution employed by Hopkins and Walcott. Nitpicking rare moments of aggression from either fighter isn't going to change that.
Sure Walcott took more punishment over his career but again Marciano, Louis, and Charles aren't exactly Taylor, Calzaghe, and that has been my point. This is needlessly going in circles so I'm going to bail before I get sick.
"Even in his fights with Louis, Joe was hit quite a bit. I think you are letting his foot work( which was indeed one of the best) allow you to think that his defense was better than what it actually was. His knockout losses should not be overlooked."
Really? Until the miracle knockout one of history's most accurate punchers isn't exactly landing anything of note. Walcott's cautious approach in the first fight is what unfairly cost him the fight in the judge's eyes.
Louis/Walcott I
Louis/Walcott II
No offense but you could of fooled me. Trade? In that oh so brief moment of aggression where a surprised Marciano doesn't even get a chance to throw anything back let alone land anything significant.
Walcott/Marciano I Rounds 1-2
Again, the whole point is that Hopkins never faced a relentless offensive force like Marciano anyway.
"I also remember him being hit a lot in his first fight with Charles. Since when has Hopkins traded punches with a puncher and fought with him on the inside taking punches? "
Charles certainly got to Walcott more than most but it wasn't because of a lack of caution on his part. Ezzard Charles was just the faster slicker fighter for the most part; only Roy Jones can come close to that offensive wizardy in regards to Hopkins opposition. Again this is pointless hair splitting; there isn't a signifcant measurable difference between the level of caution employed by Hopkins and Walcott. Nitpicking rare moments of aggression from either fighter isn't going to change that.
Sure Walcott took more punishment over his career but again Marciano, Louis, and Charles aren't exactly Taylor, Calzaghe, and that has been my point. This is needlessly going in circles so I'm going to bail before I get sick.
"Even in his fights with Louis, Joe was hit quite a bit. I think you are letting his foot work( which was indeed one of the best) allow you to think that his defense was better than what it actually was. His knockout losses should not be overlooked."
Really? Until the miracle knockout one of history's most accurate punchers isn't exactly landing anything of note. Walcott's cautious approach in the first fight is what unfairly cost him the fight in the judge's eyes.
Louis/Walcott I
Louis/Walcott II
Comment