Agreed, Walcott was a hot and cold fighter it seems like a world class journeyman certainly a circumstance type career...his career went in streaks and no doubt worried opponents management because when he was on he was smoking but when he was off very beatable they had to roll the dice and play the odds I think we can come to the conclusion based off time around fighters similar to him that had he had different circumstances he would have rated against the best but then again without the school of hardknocks type career he developed in he may not have been near the same fighter
I think Walcott was actually quite consistent from his 46 prime until the end. He was inconsistent first career for a reason. From 46 on Maxim and Elmer were close fights and he instantly avenged and he had other competitive fights with them. Charles overall was possibly just a little better but they did split fights. Louis was deffo past peak but Walcott certainly run him close first fight to say the least He put up a great show vs Marciano. We are left really with Layne when Walcott was a solid favorite.
He was an inconsistent guy with a bag of tricks that would work some nights and not the next, maybe a poor man's Toney in that regard. In Marciano, he found a foe so rudimentary in talent and ability that he was able to shine on those tricks alone, until age formed like concrete around his legs and reflexes, and allowed even Marciano to catch him. God Bless him, he fought a long time and seemed to give what he had.
Why are people saying the war was the reason for the weaker era? Just about every era had a war going on.
Millions of men were conscripted into the armed forces and could no longer pursue their careers properly.
Doesnt that happen in every war though? Vietnam lasted longer, and I would think it had to have as many men unable to pursue their careers.
This is true, but by the time his second career started and he started to get better management ('44 - '45), the results start to show this improvement. Going into '45, '46 and '47, the war wasn't as big a factor as many had already returned home and the war was over. It's not like he was doing his best work in '41 - '44 while the war is in full swing. He does a lot of his best work after the war is over, which would seem to eliminate this notion that he only became relevant because everybody else was off at war.
But they didn't just get demobbed on VJ day and come straight back to boxing where they had left off. Walcott benefitted from the war, where other boxers suffered (in boxing). This is precisely what people recognized at the time. The war drained a lot of talent and stopped a lot of younger fighters coming through. And it was a world war, so it even goes beyond the U.S. Young fighters who were turning pro shortly before the war broke out would naturally be expected to be in contention during 1944-'48 and we can assume many of them simply lost their opportunities, momentum, boxing ambition etc. (some, of course, lost their lives).
51 until the end of his career as he beat a peak heavyweight Ezzard Charles to become the champion and gave Rocky a hard time. Walcott was not better when he was younger as an old Joe Louis dominated him and he struggled against Elmer Ray, Rex Layne and Joey Maxim
Welcome Larry Holmes! I do not think I have seen the very first post of anyone here, let alone The Easton Assassin! How wereyou so good even into your 50's?! However I think you must have meant to say Walcott was dominated by Louis-Charles dominated Louis...
When he got the money to actually feed his family and train, instead of entering the ring famished, exhausted, and often sick. Depression and WWII era fighters were tough customers.
I found a newspaper article about Walcott's upcoming fight with Billy Ketchel in September 1936. Walcott is described as a long range sniper puncher who struggles at close range. They even state he is the hardest puncher to come out of Camden in a decade (also includes a rare photo of a young Walcott): https://www.newspapers.com/image/47...9.WqztI_oZQVvAvGIMSuby7xdxYhNfG1MPQramiLwAfc0 Walcott was expected to win that fight via knockout. He floored Ketchel twice in fight but lost the decision. The Camden courier post disagreed with the decision and scored it 5-3 for Walcott. Boxrec: https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php?title=Fight:23184 The two had fought each other previously with the result being a draw which the Camden post again scored for Walcott 6-2. I don't know where I read it but Walcott also had defense issues back then. He seems to have developed his refined feinting later on in the 40s under the new management, so that is the essential difference between the 1930s and the 1940s Walcott. Both were extremely hard punchers but the younger version was easier to hit and easier to thwart and tie up. Some have stated Walcott hit his prime after avenging his losses to Maxim and Ray but that's less of "hitting your prime" and more about learning how to deal with the tactics of your opponents. Same how Louis was prime for both the Godoy and Simon fights but he obviously did a lot better in the rematches. So with that in mind, I think Walcott was at his absolute athletic and technical best during 1945 and 1948 where he cleared the division (even if he needed rematches to avenge controversial decisions) and almost beat Louis himself, twice. Then it's more of Walcott slowing down his regression as much as he can and winning the title after learning Charles inside and out through numerous rounds of fighting. I personally think that even by the second fight with Louis, both Joes had regressed.
