I think Chauncy Durden described the situation correctly in March of 1950 in the Richmond Times Dispatch... "The heavyweights are such a poor lot that a journeyman fighter, who once quit the ring but came back to fight regularly, can make the No. 7 ranked heavyweight (Agramonte) look like a novice amateur scrapper." Yes, Walcott was a journeyman in the true sense of the word. But a journeyman from the decade previous was able to wait for the tides of talent to recede and found himself on high ground. "
The late 30s/early 40s must have been a truly bad ass era then! Perhaps the strongest in the sports history!
I am showing that was exactly as the boxing scribes saw Walcott in his own day, with a vision of the entire field and the fluctuation of talent over the years. He wasn't a champion from yesteryear who came back to retake the throne, a la a Foreman. He was a journeyman, referred to as such in the vast majority of articles longer than a paragraph or two, who came back to take the throne.
Is it possible that he was simply a lot better than they assumed? Where does he sit on your all time heavyweight list?
Not to nitpick, but Walcott stopped Omelio Agramonte and Ezzard Charles never beat Hurricane Jackson.
The scribes may have been wrong on Walcott. There was a lot of group thought back in the day. Much like today only today it's constant praise of athletes, rather than ridicule because the athletes wield much more power today with access to them and their teams. I watch espn and they rave about Wilder someone who to me doesn't possess one tenth of the skill level of Tyson, Holyfield or Bowe. basically the media has their own agenda and often cant be trusted to be giving an honest assessment good or bad on most athletes.
Not sure what you mean by into the 50's but let's say the quotes you speak of run from 45' to 52'. So, you'd label somebody who held wins over guys ranked in the top 10 sometime during that period (Charles, Maxim, Ray, Sheppard, Murray, Baksi, Bivens, Oma) a Journeyman? Seems more likely everybody would be that sans the champion, or they weren't good at covering boxing. Nevermind that during this same period, it's very possible Walcott should've already been called champion. Yeah, those writers might not have been very good....
Walcott was never a journeyman during the 20 month 12 fight win streak from his return to boxing after a four year lay off. In five fights after this he could not decisively beat either Maxim or Elmer Ray or Joe Louis. This did not mean he was a journeyman but an elite fighter. From then on JJW constantly remained an elite fighter. Only Joe Louis knocked him out in this point until he won the world title. It’s not journeyman fare.
Charles has more title defenses but Walcott got the knockout in their 4 fight series. Really they're locked together and I don't care who rates who higher
I agree with this 100% Walcott gets overrated today because after FIVE title shots he finally became a champion in a pretty weak era by fighting another guy who wasnt a natural HW and while a great P4P fighter wasnt a great HW himself. The late 40s and most of the 50s were pretty weak as far as the HW division was concerned. Walcott was a journeyman. He was inconsistent and it showed throughout his career, not just before he suddenly supposedly magically had the stars align in his favor. He could beat a lot of guys, not everyone, on his best day but he could also reliably lose to a lot of guys who today probably arent considered as good as him. I think part of the reason some here are getting defensive about Walcott being called a journeyman is the misconception that calling someone a journeyman is an insult. Thats not the case. A journeyman is someone who has learned his craft and plies it reliably. Not the best but not the worst. I think this is a perfect description of Walcott. He was a solid performer but never spectacular.
