Jersey Joe v the Greatest

I didn't bring up the allegations of Walcott being starved. But he did have to juggle boxing with working part time to support his family.
He got new management and financing when a wealthy restauranter from Camden took interest in him in the early 40s when Walcott had basically given up on boxing. Jersey Joe became much better after that and his record shows it.
It's widely accepted that the Walcott of the 40s is a better fighter than the 1930s version.
As for Ray, he had recently beaten ranked Savold and would go on to beat a prime Ezzard Charles (and lose to him). He was 35 but he seemed to have been at his best.

 

I would dispute the often asserted statement that Walcott was inconsistent.

Many fighters from the pre war era acted as semi professionals for part of their career, and when they got significant backing/money behind them, it suddenly became a completely different story.

Fritzie Zivic is perhaps the most dramatic example of this, because he went from being a regular loser, to dethroning the man who is arguably the P4P GOAT.

Walcott is another example, as is Elmer Ray, who had a style less suited for longevity.

You have to wonder just how deep the era could have been, if the talent had risen to the top.

The losses that we should measure Walcott's consistency by are Ray, Charles, Louis, Layne, and Marciano.

In other words he was losing to peers, and very near peers.

 

I like Joe but not in a match ups with a much bigger, faster, stronger Ali with faster feet and a much longer reach ... maybe the best Joe tats a 1977 Ali but I don't see before ...

 

He's a pickem against Final Madison Square Garden Appearance Ali who will use all of his 225 pounds.

 

I have a lot of respect for Jersey Joe Walcott, for several reasons, but, unless we are talking about the Muhammad Ali from Leon Spinks onward, I do NOT see any version of Jersey Joe beating Muhammad, by decision or any other way.

 

How many boxers in the 30' and 40's had to juggle boxing with a day job? Do you think Walcott was some how unique?
Walcott started going places when Felix Bochichio a mobster took over his management,Bochichio's connections may have had something to do with Walcott getting 5 shots at the title, finally winning it on his 5th attempt.Ray beat Savold in 46,Savold hadn't been ranked since 43.

 

I'm going to guess the ones ranked in the top 10 were full time fighters. Walcott wasn't unique but he got his chance to be a dedicated boxer and proved to be more than what his record indicated. Louis called him a second rater and had to eat his word.
Savold was unrated in '46 when he lost to Ray though he'd go on to be rated in '48 and beating Charles is invaluable.

"A complete change in Walcott's life came in 1944, when he signed to fight under the aegis of Joe Webster, a wealthy Camden restauranteur. He had six or seven former pilots, but he was a discouraged disillusioned fighter until Webster came along"
The Afro American 29 Nov 1947: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...nepage&q=joe louis jersey joe walcott&f=false

 

What was the year he got signed to real management ? I forget. 1945ish?

 

The left hook seemed to be Alis Achilles but in this case the movement, speed and size (reach) would be trouble for JJW

 

There's an inconvenient truth for people here claiming that Walcott suddenly got better and more consistent in the mid 1940s after I pointed out that the guy lost 30% of his fights: From 1946 on Walcott fought 16 fights against top ten ranked HW contenders and champions and lost 8 of them. And keep in mind, this is in the wake of WW2 when the division was recognized by the experts at the time as being one of its weakest points in history. The fact that Walcott got five title shots in just over three and a half years says a lot about how weak the division was. The fact that he managed to get a title shot after losing a clear cut decision to Rex Layne, in which Walcott was floored and lost, only to immediately get another title shot, again, illustrates how weak the division was and how connected Walcott's management was. So Walcott was a 50/50 fighter against ranked HWs in a weak era of the division and somehow in his mid thirties, past his prime, smaller, slower, shorter reach, etc etc is going to beat the guy who was the king of the division when it was at its best in history? I think not.

 

If Walcott didn't get better in the 40s, then you would basically have to conclude that the 30s was the strongest era in the sports history.

 

Jersey Joe Walcott, great legs, power in both hands and was ring smart

He fought many all-time great and excelled, he rose to the occasion when in with the best for the most part.
He dropped Joe Louis 3 times in 2 fights and many argue won the first fight.

He dropped Marciano in the first fight and was ahead on points until brutally KO'd in a competitive fight.

Fought competitively in a few fights' vs ATG Ezzard Charles and devastatingly KO'd Charles with a brutal left hook uppercut.

What would make anyone think he had no chance to beat Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Jim Jeffries, Tunney, and others

Does anyone think his left hook would be useless against Ali or would he be less effective than Henry Cooper, Doug Jones, etc.
Would his right hand and tricky set ups be useless against Larry Holmes?

Walcott rose to the occasion when put in with the best and IMO had the chance to upset any of the best or at least give them some very scary moments.

 

he went 5p

He went 2-2 with Charles, lost his 2 with Louis ,won and lost against Ray and Maxim.
Which ATG heavyweights did he excel against?

 

the great Joe Louis, the great Rocky Marciano, the Great Ezzard Charles

 

Do you believe Walcott could have stopped Bahamas Ali?