Did Jersey Joe have The Perfect Style To Beat Marciano?

You spend this entire post bigging up Walcott’s opponents, dismissing the career opponent he lost to (oh, he beat the 11-15 guy two out of three … how impressive!) and then say “I never said these guys were all that.” Make up your mind.

Maxim was a light heavyweight who got ranked from time to time at heavyweight because there weren’t a lot of good heavyweights. You want to tell me that losing to him is a gold star for Walcott, or winning two of three? To me, it’s not.

Walcott absolutely did not deserve the rematch with Ezzard where he won the title — he had just been dominated by Charles in Ezz’s previous defense. Not close. Yet here’s Joe again (was it his fourth, fifth or sixth shot? — I lose count) at the front of the line.

Walcott did nothing in his career until he got a mob guy to manage him. Then suddenly his losses don’t count and his wins are inflated as if he’s knocking off the absolute cream of heavyweight history. That’s the truth.

He lost twice to an old Joe Louis. He managed to knock out Ezz when he got a shot he didn’t deserve. Then he got KO’d twice and packed it in.

 

I dismiss it because he was fresh off a 4 year lay off. When he shook the rust off he took the guy out in 3 rounds.

You said this:

I never said they were "Rushmore types". I said he beat the contemporary contenders, which he did.

He nearly beat Louis, then nearly beat Charles and then beat him twice and then almost beat Marciano while being 39 years old himself. These guys are the actual Mount Rushmore types and Walcott was equal to them, so what are you even arguing for at this point?

 

The thing with Walcott you never know which Walcott will show up, ATG Walcott?? Or the one that struggle with the likes of Layne?

 

So many holes in that man's game. When he was on and had a complimentary opponent, it was crazy good. His KO of Charles is one of my very favorites of all time. But damn, did he lose a lot.

 

He got a shot at Ezzard by losing to Rex Layne as a 4-1 favorite in his fight immediately preceding the title shot. (Which is to say he got his shot because he had a mob manager.)

And he most definitely did not “nearly beat” Charles — he lost by 6, 8 and 10 points on the cards and was dropped for a 9-count.

For which he was rewarded (by the mob) with … a rematch!

Walcott went 5-5 into the bout where he finally won the title. And, somehow, get four title shots — losing each time — and then was gifted a fifth.

Everything I posted about his opponents is absolute fact. You are the one who is making out as if they were more than they were. Two guys with 50 losses between them and you mention them as if that’s outstanding competition. Another (Murray) who had just lost two fights before to a 10-4-4 guy (and Walcott won by DQ because Murray wasn’t trying, lol).

Those are facts, same as Joe’s loss to the 11-15 guy.

Legendary stuff.

 

not at all, that is a very normal record back then and an expected one... everybody has a Peak and even an ebb & flow peak.

Who did he fight Win or Lose during his peak, how well did he do even in loses and that is it... and for every single fighter who ever lived.

all this trying to put one fighter ahead of another based on Title Achievements is a lot of s hit and so inaccurate it often becomes pathetic seeing lesser fighters rated over definite great fighters.

H2H is the Only way to 'Try' and Rate and measure fighters more evenly... and even that is a hard task.

I understand the interest Boxing has adopted that way of Ranking fighters, but Dear God, it is so inaccurate and often times insulting or a mockery even.

Anyway, that is how I see it and understand it, as I have stated many times in the past over the years, and many, many people agree with it too. So that's the joy & value of life, perspective. Cheers.

 

"Jack Cuddy of United Press scored the fight for Charles. He had it 8-5-2 in rounds.
The crowd booed the decision, and Walcott complained he had been "robbed.""

Fight was close.

You can nitpick anyone's opposition but the fact of the matter is Walcott beat most of the ranked contenders of the mid 40s before facing and nearly besting Louis. He was clearly the best man around besides the champ.

Clinging on to that loss is pointless.
Louis, Charles and Marciano didn't face the guy who lost to a nobody, they faced a guy who had massively improved past the initial stages of his comeback.
You're acting like fighters can't shake off inactivity as they gain fight experience.

What the mob did for him is no concern of mine. If he wasn't supposed to be fighting at that level, Louis, and co would have cleaned his clock.

 

The goat.