Futch reportedly called him the greatest technician he'd ever seen and I can see why. Walcott had amazing technical skills combined with a unique style. He was a craftsman and artist both. So how would you compare him skillwise with the other greatly skilled HWs like Louis, Holyfield, Ali, Patterson, Moore, Tunney, Charles etc? Where does he compare favourable and where doesn't he?
There aren't many great skilled Heavies. Charles is the most skilled that I've seen, and the best technician. I have a feeling he could beat Larry Holmes.
Charles' only deficit vs Holmes would have been his size disadvantage..otherwise Ezz was pretty much the complete package..he had speed, skills and power..and as I've referred to in other posts regarding him, a certain catlike quality that lended itself to moves of both an offensive and defensive nature. The psychological whammy he suffer after the illfated Sam Boroudi match had a negative impact on his overall skills and approach to fighting, naturally. As for Walcott, it's really great that he's ungoing a sort of critical reappraisal of his great unorthodox skills and abilities these days...he's a real trip to watch, IMO..and his fights with Charles are some of my favorites.
I don't see why he should necessarily be seen as more skilled than Charles or Moore Guys above 175 and below 200 would tend to exhibit the best skills though, it seems.
Charles is probably the most skilled ever. But Walcott's overall style is one of the toughest to beat in history when he is at his best, imo. Walcott's style was a dangerous combination of many great things.
Jersey Joe's skills were certainly sublime. It's a pity that he never reached his full potential until fairly late on in his career. He often had to take his early fights on short notice,and be undertrained as a result. Imagine if he'd had better breaks and made his major breakthrough in the late 1930's instead of '40's ! He and Joe Louis' fights could have taken place ten years before they did,and still have been highly competitive. Hypothetically,a Muhammad Ali v Walcott bout would have been a marvel to watch.
Walcott had an orthodox yet beautiful style. Great footwork & loved to land that sneaky left hook out of nowhere and had knockout power.
well charles and walcott are up there that's for sure but i think in general under rate the skill of heavyweights in a way..... this is why...when they see a small guy using speed, they think wow that is so cool and skillful they see a big guy using power and things of that nature....they are unimpressed...saying he relies on his power and physical stuff but when u look at it in reality, the small guy here and the big guy are doing the same thing....
If he is the most skilled, then his record would lead one to conclude he was direly inept in other departments.
C'mon, really? Do the best skills a heavyweight can possess not get you beyond Joey Maxim or get you outboxed by Elmer Ray? Really? Some here are too enamored with little 10 second highlights of tap dancing, soft shuffle shoulder rolls that look cute enough, and once in a great while actually lead to effective pugilism, but more ofter do nothing but titillate those with a secret theatrical proclivity. Or perhaps, in this day and age, the short attention syndrome has drained all perspective and better judgement from the masses.
Or maybe it will lead you to see he has one of the best win resumes out of any Heavyweight Champion in history..A far better one than Gene Tunney.