I think he is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, although part of that is taken on the faith of his 40s record and even a couple of fights from the 50s. He was an epic stylist I could have watched for hours and unfortunately he just wasn't filmed much. Even the fact that his biggest bouts with Louis, Charles (only partially), and Marciano were filmed is not a consolation to me. I could use at least another 10 fights of Walcott's on film. He has my vote as #2 best counterpuncher of all time.
He also lost 20 fights and only four of those were toward the end of his career (and some of his best wins were, too, so it’s not like he was past it). And I’ll be damned if I can figure out how he got a third crack at Ezzard Charles after losing two him twice before in title fights, and an immediate rematch to win the title after he had been thoroughly outpointed by Ezz in his previous attempt — which was coming off of a loss to Rex Layne to boot. He’s a joy to watch but obviously there were flaws for him to have so many losses.
Can you summarise the wind? The smell of rain after a storm in the evening air before consuming the meat of a cow fresh from the grill of a friend? Can you summarise the feeling of silk on the skin of a newly-christened Japanese lover? Or-or-or the sweet smell of a gardenia as it wafts across the deck of your familial home in south Spunkchester? I highly doubt you can summarise these things. So how then dare you attempt to summarise Jerseyeus Joseph Walcott III? Good day, sir.
I don't know his record that well but I do recall Walcott was a prospect of Jack Blackburn and was to be going to Chicago with Blackburn and Louis in the mid 30s. He came down with a serious illness and was left behind. I don't know if that was a factor or just that he was starting at times
"Walcott kept fighting, kept winning, got a rematch with Charles where he again dropped a 15 round decision, but this time he gave Ezzard the toughest of struggles and many thought Jersey Joe had been robbed again. So, four months later, in Pittsburgh, the two rivals met for a third time."
The crowd did boo the decision, because Walcott was the underdog, and generally more popular, and put up a better fight than most people expected. They also took against Charles for his cautious tactics. But the Associated Press and United Press both had Charles a clear winner, and the AP reported polling eight ringside reporters and they all scored it for Charles.
https://www.thefightcity.com/jersey-joe-walcott-wins-the-big-one/ That's where i found the quote. But yeah, i agree with absolutely everything you said.
Have to agree. They would have been interesting to see what mistakes he made to caus such losses back in the 40s.
Unlike now, back then people didn't place a that much emphasis on undefeated records, a loss here and there wasn't the end of your career. It's about how you performed in the fight and fighters tended to fight more frequently so it was a natural occurrence. You have to factor in the first fight with Charles was largely seen as "uneventful". Charles deserved the win but it wasn't title fight worthy. Jersey Joe worked his way back going on a win streak beating Harold Johnson (future LHW Champ) and made his way back into title contention. Although he lost to Layne, many viewed this as the better fighter allowing a lesser fighter to beat him. Plus he hurt his right hand in the fight. Many let it slide. Think Erik Morales losing to Zahir Raheem but still getting a shot against Pacquiao next anyway. It's important to remember that Joe was more of a fan favorite than Charles and many viewed the division as relatively wide open. Also the fact that Charles beat the legend Joe Louis probably didn't do him any favors. Walcott's age also added to the intrigue. Fight 2 was similar to Fight 1 except Charles scored a knockdown. Despite the knockdown, the fight was close enough that Joe claimed victory. Then came the 3rd fight where Joe scored the famous left hook KO, followed up their 4th and final meeting where many observers didn't feel as though Charles did enough to take the title away from the Champion. Remember, Jersey Joe was far past the age where fighters are still in title contention. Sort of like Foreman in the 90s; he was an underdog that many rooted for despite the clear obstacles. Walcott was 37 when he won the title from Charles, and that was a record which stood for nearly 40 years until George Foreman broke it in '94.
