Jersey Joe Walcott : how good was he?

I have him in the top 15, but not the top 10. Since that puts him in the top .00001% of all professional heavyweight boxers, I think it would be reasonable to say that he qualifies as "great."

As a heavyweight I absolutely think he was better than Marshall or Bivins, and probably better even than Moore or Charles "on his best day," though they were more consistent. Out of guys who had their best years during 1945-1955, I would overall rank Walcott #2 behind Marciano, although a good case can be made for putting Charles a notch ahead of him as well.

I don't think so. Even if we think only in terms of the eight "original" weight classes and imagine that the pound-for-pound talent is evenly distributed amongst them, then only the top 12-13 guys from each division would make the top 100 pound-for-pound, while Walcott stands at #14 on my list of heavyweights. Moreover, I don't believe the heavyweight division has been as deep as some other divisions in terms of depth of talent historically.

 

Walcott is a lot better now than he was in the fifties when he was thought of as an average champion

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Many people thought he threw the second fight though,beleiving he could have gotten up.

 

Against Marciano?

 

Yes!

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Opinions on this fight varied from those who thought Joe took a decent shot , went down and then the prospect of another do or die 13rds like the first fight just got to him and he decided to take the count , some thought he froze.A J Liebling , watching the fight said."In September , I had seen Walcott walk out and beat Marciano to the punch.But this time,he neither punched nor skipped, he just backed away.More from Liebling,"It wasn't a crashing knockdown, the kind that leavesthe recipient limp, like a wet hat,or jerky ,like a new caught flounder. This appeared to be a sit down and think it over knockdown,such as you might see in a bar room." "Jersy Joe may have begun the process of ratiocination right away.But the conclusion at which he was arriving was not instantly apparent. Like the drowning men in stories ,he may have been reviewing his whole life, with a long pause on what had happened to him in PHILADELPHIA. The dramatic significance of the fleeting seconds was lost upon the crowd,because everybody present,with the possible exception of Mr Walcott himself, took it for granted thathe would get up within ten seconds. And maybe he thought so too , for a while, but if he did ,he dismissed the thought. Sprawled on the canvas floor covering ,his right arm hooked over the middle strand ,of the ropes he waited for the referee
to count to ten ,and arose","Unable to hear the count we assumed that he had risen at nine .But when the referee a slight man called Frank Sikora spread his arms wide to indicate all was ended.Walcott walked calmly over to the ropes on our side of the ring, evincing a commendable independence of public opinion." "If he had maintained this attitude I would have admired him. The spectators were resentful,and their resentment was based on the suspicion that he had not been hit hard enough. " This is a decision every man must make for himself, and of all the sixteen thousand persons under the big shed,Walcott was in the best position to make it.But as he heard the boos , he changed his mind . He mimed outrage, batting his gloves togehter, and stam ping like a wrestler."
"Walcott made it plain that he had not ben knocked out at all. The crowd ,with a forlorn hope that the fight might be resumed- after all it had got precious little action for its money- increased its booing , for Walcott. Jersey Joe had stolen the scene from the man who had knocked him out!"


Walcott later claimed he heard the count up to about three ,then blacked out so could not beleive he had been kod. Marciano had actually been practising that right uppercut for the fight and said it was a good punch. But most newspapers, and the Ring castigated Walcott.

 

Sure-

Charles arguably got the better of his series with Walcott, since he won their first two fights and was felt by many sportswriters to have deserved the decision in their fourth encounter as well.

He had a better numerical record than Walcott, with less-erratic performances. In his peak run, he strung together substantially more noteworthy wins than Walcott ever did without losing. He did better against Maxim and Layne than Walcott did, and arguably Marciano as well, when one considers that Charles at least put forth respectable results in both encounters, while Walcott's Marciano rematch was a complete bust.
----------------
Now, to provide counterpoints to everything above:
While the first paragraph above remains true, the record stands that Walcott and Charles were 2-2 against one another, with Walcott holding the only knockout and by far the most emphatic win either of them ever posted over the other, pitching a near-shut-out through six and then flattening Ezzard.

Although Charles did better against Maxim and Layne, Walcott did better against Johnson, and arguably Ray and Bivins as well. As for Marciano, Walcott did come closer to actually beating Marciano by outfighting/outboxing him than Charles did, with his insurmountable points lead in the first fight, whereas Charles' "near-win" depended on a freak-of-nature injury that was probably caused by a foul anyway.

And although Charles has the better numerical record, I believe Walcott's peak showings (Louis I, Charles III, Marciano I, etc.) were more impressive than any Charles put forth.

As I said before, I rank Walcott just a hair ahead of Charles, but believe a legitimate case exists either way. I think there have seldom been two contemporary champions closer in greatness than they were.

 

I can't really split them myself,Walcott may have been the better Heavy though he was more inconsistant. Charles is greater p4p.IMO.