How should we view these fights of jersey joe's?

When weighing up this man's greatness there's the contradiction betwee how skilled he actually looks and how many fights he lost once he'd hit his stride. I'm not really a fan nor hater of jersey's so i'm not claiming each of these is a robbery, i'm just asking how each of these should be perceived in your opinion, because in mine, the perception of these shapes my ranking of him.

In order of significance:

Louis v walcott 1.

Walcott v charles 4.

Walcott v charles 2.

Walcott v bivins.

Layne v walcott.

Maxim v walcott (the losing effort, can't recall from the top of my head which one it was)

Ray v walcott 1.

Is there an argument that jersey won each of these fights? Or is there an equal argument he lost each of these fights?

 

As far as i know Charles won the second fight and was mildly robbed in the fourth.

Louis - Walcott - opinions are split. Depends who you like more

 

Layne fight was a loss.

Ray - Walcott 1 - a very close win for Elmer.

 

I don't know enough about all the fights in question, but I've always found when stating a fighter as a Great too many people ***** foot around the question put out.

for me JJW IS A Great, end of... and when talking about his record (and any & ALL fighters), YES Robberies, Circumstances, Questionable Decisions, Begining of Career - End of Career, fighting outside your real weight and so on, ALL MATTER and place lots of fighters in their deserved place among fellow greats

it's real & true facts after all and these fighters deserve the same as the others!

Jersey Joe Walcott IS A Great!

 

I'm a massive fan of Jersey Joe, and have written an article on him before. From most accounts, the pest Louis fight was a damn right robbery. While we don't have the full film available, we do have the crowd reaction as well as the reaction of each fighter (Jersey raises his arm in celebration, while a dejected Louis attempts to leave the ring before the decision is announced only to be convinced otherwise by his corner.)

The Bivins fight was particularly strange, considering jimmy won on the cards before the fight was awarded to jersey Joe becuase of the KD.

The Charles fights were interesting. I've always considered it 2-2.

He beat Maxim 2 out of 3 times, and knocked out Elmer Ray.
Definitely a great for me

 

Ray had a 2-5-3 record at the time.

 

We can't really hold that against Jersey Joe (who himself was coming off 2 losses on his last 3 fights). While Ray was raw, he still have good power.

Also, I forgot to mention, he was also soundly beating Marciano before he was stopped by possibly the greatest punch in history

 

Maxim 1 - Walcott fought injured. Decision may have been controversial.

 

From what I can gather, footage of every round of the first louis fight is available providing you know the right people. Under a ten point must system it seems almost certain it'd be scored for jersey by anyone.

The 4th charles fight, there was a 21-14 split amongst ringside reporters so had it been a nws fight charles would have won. However it seems almost certain it was a close fight. I've not seen it myself however.

The second charles fight led to a third so I assumed it must have been controversial.

The bivins fight greatly mystifies me. The judges actually scored for bivins but one judge awarded his score to jersey based on the kd. However the reports do seem to indicate jersey soundly outboxed bivins which isn't something I previously realised.

The layne fight I assumed was either an anomaly or a controversial fight but I can't seem to make my mind up.

I have heard a few posters refer to the jersey v maxim loss as a bad decision and I know maxim wasn't exactly shy of receiving a gift or two.

The ray loss was a sd so I was wondering how justified the decision was.

I'm not questioning jersey's status as a great. I'm wondering about how he should be regarded within the divisions history. If there's a valid case that these are his top 7 victories than he has one of the strongest resume's out there. If these are losses than he remains in the 15-20 mark.

 

Walcott isn't 'great'.

 

If i'm not mistaken the fight was pretty even for about 5 rounds after that Walcott faded and Layne clinched the decision.

 

Maybe not in your opinion. In mine, he is.

 

For all those interested, these are extracts of my article written in Mand's Encyclopaedia thread on the Brit Forum.

Jersey Joe Walcott is an all time great Heavyweight. He gets in my top 15

 

Also, he managed to produce possibly the finest knockout punch of all time when he put Charles down in their third fight

 

Actually he was on the recieving end of the most famous KO punch ever.

This content is protected