Charles was more traditionally skilled. Walcott was skilled in a unique way. Unique can win if it’s backed by natural abilities. Walcott was a well respected by his peers. Maybe not the handful of reporters that some sad souls like to pull up but the greats of the time had a deep respect for his abilities. Charles though was def more fundamentally sound,
Walcott lost almost every third time he decided to enter a boxing contest. Scoreboard tells us he simply just wasn't that good. Math don't lie.
So did Holyfield and many other great fighters. We judge people by their primes and best wins. Not by when they were old or young or varying conditions. You know this yet you continue to do what you do. Man beat a top ten ATG in Charles and should have had another against Louis. Came three rounds from beating the great Marciano. Beat Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Lee Murray, Baksi, Curtis Sheppard, Joey Maxim and many other solid contenders. He was a great fighter.
this is the only way fighters can be assessed, context is everything as the saying goes, and it applies to everyone, not just whom one chooses to apply it too, while denying it for others. an Excellent breakdown.
Walcott was doing boxing only part time in his early career, doing menial jobs to make ends meet. Walcott had no reputable trainer (if any at all, as he likely couldn't even afford one) until his short time with Jack Blackburn, where he improved greatly. When Walcott could focus entirely on boxing later in his career he became the heavyweight champion of the world. Put any ATG/Hall of Famer in his shoes and they will have multiple losses just like Walcott.
He was a helluva fighter, I'll give him that. But he was afforded the luxury of feasting on the enfeebled like Walcott, Louis, Charles and Moore and paler non-entities like Layne, Lastarza, Matthews and C o c k ell. But at least he beat the bejesus out of them.
Walcott having a bunch of losses isn't really the heart of the dispute here. I'm the first to defend James Braddock etc etc. Losses happen in that format. It's him being rewarded for losses with a shower of title shots and an improbable string of circumstances going his way to get him the record he got. Two of his biggest wins coming off a guy not trying and having their back spontaneously explode. As an atheist if I was Jersey Joe Walcott I would be a devout Christian because from his perspective he's got a mountain of evidence that god on his side.
I personally don’t think he deserved the third fight when he won the title. Shot should have went to Layne who beat him. But he didn’t just earn fights off his wins he earned them on his performances against the best even when he lost. He was robbed in the Louis fight imo. Plenty of great champs had fights with losers who gave up before entering the ring. There is nothing unusual there.
Ezzard Charles was the better fighter by a good margin. I look at Jersey Joe much like i do Freddie pendleton; he had a rough start, got a break and made the most of it. At his best, during his run, Walcott was a serious fighter and a hard day's work for just about anybody. he had some spots where he was less than, if that makes sense, but he learned some things and, when he hit his stride, he was pretty good. Ezzard Charles was a top notch guy his whole career. You can make a good argument that his run at heavyweight was the weakest run of his career.