Walcott and Charles underrated

Among all-time heavyweights, I think these guys get underrated.

I like watching these two fight each other, there's a lot of skill and variety on display even when the pace is slow. A lot of pure boxing, but not in the stick-and-move, jab-and-run mould.
Both guys know how to slip and parry with expertise, so they dont just try to out-jab each other.

If these two had come along 20 or 30 years later they would have been stars in the colour TV era, probably with a lot less tough fights to get to a title fight, bigger purses and probably rated higher today.

In their own time they suffered a hard road, the shadow of the long-reigning and explosive Joe Louis, and the stereotypical dis-interest of a press that regarded them as "Negro Fighters".

They tend to get pushed down the rankings by later champions like Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis etc. And even earlier champions who had the glamourous images or the big-money fights, like Baer, Schmeling, and certainly Dempsey and Tunney, sometimes, usually or often get put ahead of them.

[markedwardscott]

I agree with that. Both extremely tricky fighters unlucky to have to tangle with Marciano. Both men beat the crap out of Rocky in their losses.

Walcott totally outboxed Louis in their first fight.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

Among all-time heavyweights, I think these guys get underrated.

I like watching these two fight each other, there's a lot of skill and variety on display even when the pace is slow. A lot of pure boxing, but not in the stick-and-move, jab-and-run mould.
Both guys know how to slip and parry with expertise, so they dont just try to out-jab each other.

If these two had come along 20 or 30 years later they would have been stars in the colour TV era, probably with a lot less tough fights to get to a title fight, bigger purses and probably rated higher today.

In their own time they suffered a hard road, the shadow of the long-reigning and explosive Joe Louis, and the stereotypical dis-interest of a press that regarded them as "Negro Fighters".

They tend to get pushed down the rankings by later champions like Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis etc. And even earlier champions who had the glamourous images or the big-money fights, like Baer, Schmeling, and certainly Dempsey and Tunney, sometimes, usually or often get put ahead of them.

Both Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles are two champions who's names have been burried in the shadows of time, as you say. They did not posses the dominace, glamour or media backing of men who either preceeded or succeeded them. Charles probably deserves to be rated just a pinch higher in my opinion, give that he probably has a slightly larger collection of better wins when combined at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight. For whatever its worth, he did manage to get an OFFICIAL win over Joe Louis, whereas Walcott's claim was a potential robbery loss. Charles also won both of their first two fights, and although Jersey rebounded in the next two, in a more modern era, we'd be less likely to see a 4 fight series between fighters after the first two had the same outcome. Charles was also competitive in both of his fights with Marciano, whereas Joe was only a tough fight for Rocky in the first match. He got killed the second time around.

[Bummy Davis]

Charles was a great fighter and he carried that greatness up into the HVys, Walcott was a tricky,ring savy,pin point puncher, I agree they are very underated and would have done great in the 70's, 80's 90's etc. REAL TALENT

[richie leon]

Charles was maybe the best lightheavyweight ever, and he was still a very good heavyweight, but i don't rhink he was an ATG at that particular weight.
Certainly ATG overall though.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Sonny's jab

Among all-time heavyweights, I think these guys get underrated.

I like watching these two fight each other, there's a lot of skill and variety on display even when the pace is slow. A lot of pure boxing, but not in the stick-and-move, jab-and-run mould.
Both guys know how to slip and parry with expertise, so they dont just try to out-jab each other.

If these two had come along 20 or 30 years later they would have been stars in the colour TV era, probably with a lot less tough fights to get to a title fight, bigger purses and probably rated higher today.

In their own time they suffered a hard road, the shadow of the long-reigning and explosive Joe Louis, and the stereotypical dis-interest of a press that regarded them as "Negro Fighters".

They tend to get pushed down the rankings by later champions like Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis etc. And even earlier champions who had the glamourous images or the big-money fights, like Baer, Schmeling, and certainly Dempsey and Tunney, sometimes, usually or often get put ahead of them.

For what it is worth, Muhammad Ali in 1976 on ABC in a show in which he evaluated the old champions with Howard Cosell as the commentater, offered his opinion that he considered both Charles or Walcott as better than Dempsey and other old champions. In that program Ali did have a great deal of praise for Tunney, whom he considered a precursor of 'modern' fighters.

[Bummy Davis]

They would have been held in a higher esteem if a gentleman named Rocky Marciano did not leave us with the memory of the final fights with him, but it was in there 1st fights that they proved there greatness, sometimes only fighting a great fighter brings out your greatness