Why do most people give Charles the nod over Walcott..

Jersey Joe Walcott was at his best later in his career. He had losses... and even KO losses sprinkled thruout his career. He may have turned pro in 1930 but he was at his best in the mid to late 40's.

Look at his career from the 1945 Joe Baksi fight thru his last fight in 1953. During this stretch he went 20-9 (11) in 29 fights. He was stopped by only Louis and Marciano x2. He went 2-6 (1) in HW World Title Fights. Yes, he should have beat Louis in their first fight! He lost HW World Title Fights to Louis x2, Charles x2, and Marciano x2.

Prior to the Baksi fight he went 31-9-2 (21) overall and was stopped 4 times.

Let me ask this question... had Walcott done as well vs. Marciano in their rematch as he had done in their first fight, would as many people be saying he was washed up in the rematch? He got caught with a great shot and was stopped... the same thing could have happened to a younger Walcott. The fights were less than 8 months apart... Walcott was 1.25 Lbs heavier, but still not at his heaviest. He was well prepared and still very good.

As for the Charles vs. Walcott fights? H2H Charles did better IMO. Charles won the first two fights clearly and even dropped Walcott once. In the 3rd fight Walcott landed a great shot and stopped Charles in the 7th. Their 4th fight was close and the decision went to Walcott but many felt Charles had won. They were both close to prime in these fights.

Look at what else Charles did-

He went 39-1 from 1946 - July of 1951 (when he was stopped by Walcott). The only loss was a bullshlt SD loss to Elmer Ray that he later avenged by KO. During that stretch he went 9-0 (5) in HW World Title Fights. Among others he beat-

Teddy Yarosz, Anton Christoforidis, Charley Burley x2, Jose Basora, Joey Maxim x5, Archie Moore x3, Lloyd Marshall 2 out of 3, Jimmy Bivins 4 out of 5, Elmer Ray 1 out of 2, Joe Baksi, Jersey Joe Walcott 2 out of 4, Gus Lesnevich, Joe Louis, Rex Layne 2 out of 3, Cesar Brion, Coley Wallace, Bob Satterfield, and many others.

Early in his career he lost a decision to the much more experienced Ken Overlin. He later drew with Overlin. He also lost a SD to the much more experienced Kid Tunero. Overlin and Tunero were top fighters during this time and Charles had not peaked yet.

Prior to serving in the military Charles lost B2B fights to Hall of Famers Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall. He came back a much better fighter and went 6-2 (3) vs. these two fighters lifetime.

Let's look at his losses between 1947-1954. He lost decisions to Elmer Ray, Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Nino Valdes, and Harold Johnson that many feel Charles deserved to win. He also lost to Walcott, LKOby7, as mentioned above. The only other losses he had during this time were in his 98th and 99th pro fights... L15 Marciano and LKOby8 Marciano.

 

I don't doubt you know plenty about the great sport of boxing. Most members here our very knowledgeable. How many people even know anything about boxing these days? We are all part of a rare breed... just a little harmless picking... didn't mean any disrespect.

 

Did Charles win their 1st fight more convincingly than Cream won their 4th ?
but anyway , it doesn't matter , KO > 3 decisions . especially when it is probably like KO & draw or even KO & 2 draws vs 1 decision .
And Cream would have been d better pick vs a prime Louis .
If Cream was @ his prime @ his last fights then why did he retire ? he was slighlty older than Louis whom was retired for a while , bald himself , started @ 1930 , b4 Louis . All evidence lead that he wasn't prime .
He did what he did vs. Charles & Marchegiano because he was that good and Rocco was tailor made for him like he said . Wasn't he ever asked about d reasons 4 his retirement ? I believe it was 2 obvious that he was 2 old and couldn't do it anymore .

 

Charles has good names in his record but some of them as I already posted were old (Louis , Marshall , Overlin) , some of them he didn't beat (Louis , Overlin , Harold Johnson) and some of them destroyed him (Marshall , Cream , Marchegiano) .
Same with Cream but I already stated d reasons 2 y I rank him above Charles in h2h terms . P4P it is harder 2 decide . h2h is hard 2 decide but my reasons stay corrected .

 

Top 3 troll of Classic?

 

Most felt Charles won their 4th fight... would have made it 3-1 for Charles... with the only Walcott win being in their 3rd fight (KO7)... Charles had clearly won vs. Walcott twice and wasn't as motivated in a 3rd fight. Also, resume... very few resumes are as good as Charles'

 

Look at Charles from 1946 -1951 (the loss to Walcott). He went 39-1 and the only loss was a super close fight to Elmer Ray. He also stopped Elmer Ray in the rematch. During that stretch he beat many good and great fighters.

 

I dont think any fighter can be consistant against the uber elite. The layne, valdes and johnson losses could all have went either way much like one of maxim fights, one of the moore fights, one of the fitzpatric and one of the Ray fights when charles did get the nod controversialy. The point is over a 3 fight serries charles always won the serries. Nobody can rule out Charles winning rematches against johnson and valdes since they were hairline decisions and he reboundeded with better wins. Even as an ex champion People at the time still understood that charles could beat any man at heavyweight in a 3 fight serries and thats why he got 2 cracks at Marciano.

The trouble with Charles's career was he fought the same guy more than 3 times a lot. How different would a lot of champions careers have been if they also did that?

 

Charles clearly won the 2nd fight? :huh Did you see the fight? Walcott badly staggered Charles with right hand counters like 5 times, the fight was much closer than the scorecards indicated. The crowd even booed the decision. Some thought Walcott won. Many press row scores had Charles by only 1-2 rounds.

Resume wise at heavyweight...It's close. Charles beat Moore, but that was before Moore established himself a premier heavyweight contender. Walcott beat Lee Q Murray, whom Charles never fought. Walcott beat a much better version of Louis in 1947. Charles also beat Walcott leftovers Ray and Bivins.

 

For all this talk of staggering, Charles actually dropped Walcott for a 9 count in the second fight with a fantastic left hook. Charles didn't finish but Walcott looked really hurt.

Like others pointed out, it really comes down to Charles taking the first two fights convincingly and the 4th fight being a disputed win for Walcott.

I can only see a case for Walcott if you place all your value on the dominace of the third showing and not their series as a whole.

 

That's 1 round, watch the others..It was a very close fight. Walcott puts charles on rubber legs about 3-4 times.

 

Head to head, from what I have seen, at heavyweight, I rate Walcott slightly higher than Charles.

It would help if anyone had footage of the second and fourth fights. I've only seen the end of the first and the 3rd fight. From this I gather they were evenly matched, but if I had a gun to my head, Walcott slipping Charles' jab and unleashing a perfect left hook to leave him unconscious left a marked impression on me.

If I look outside of these fights, Charles did the job on a slow, plodding Louis. Walcott fought a much better version of Joe in my opinion, and did a good job of it in the first fight. The way with which Charles finished Pat Valentino and Rex Layne was pretty frightening though....very tough one to call.