Hard to say, but either he was taking their power, or he was incredibly successful at not getting hit by them!
I imagine plenty of people were successful at not getting hit flush by those guys... I don’t have a firm opinion on Walcott’s chin but without more detail I don’t see how we can use those fights as proof that it was “very much the opposite” of mediocre.
You think the tides of talent receded from the great days of champions like Carnera and Braddock and contenders like King Levinsky and Tony Galento. I think the more likely explanation is that the talent pool was stunted by the color line and once it was withdrawn talent which had been starved of proper training and opportunity simply fulfilled itself. I think the standard used to claim Walcott as a journeyman for his entire career could be used to name Archie Moore as a journeyman for over a decade at the beginning of his career. It was normal to lose a lot back then. Was Ike Williams a journeyman? He lost 20 some times. Kid Gavilan lost 30 times. Was he a journeyman?
The difference is those two lost more towards the end of their careers and at higher weights. Walcott was always an inconsistent fighter.
What is the evidence boxing lost a generation of talent due to WWII? Of those who died, a majority were probably from the Soviet Union and China which weren't into professional boxing. The Spanish Flu epidemic of 1917 to 1920 probably killed more than WWII did, and there was also WWI. So there should have been a generation of talent removed in the 1920's. All of these mortality disasters might well have been overpowered by improved medical care over the decades and the subsequent fall in the death rate for infants and children. Someone who doesn't last to adulthood isn't going to make a mark as an athlete. Does this mean that Sugar Ray Robinson should be docked because of World War II? Why just pick on Walcott? Also why were WWII era fighters like Robinson, Archie Moore, and Joe Brown still champions going into the 1960's. If they represented a diminished talent pool, shouldn't they have been replaced by fighters from the supposedly expanded post-war talent pool? I want to make clear that I think WWII definitely effected the talent pool during the war when millions of young men were in the service. But once the war was over these men left the service. Boxing was probably negatively impacted much more by the post war economic growth and the fall of the color line in other sports and in other areas of society. There were more options available.
Good point, but I would point out that both Gavilan and Williams started downhill while still in their 20's. There is no question that Walcott was less successful then either, indeed a journeyman, in his 20's, and far more successful in his 30's. Both these men were basically washed up when Walcott was reaching his peak. Their records after age 28 were those of a journeyman. Walcott is not alone. Archie Moore had the same career pattern. So did Joe Brown. All three fought best in their 30's. So did D-ck Tiger. Tiger is a good example of a boxer who came on late when he received better training with any unlikely extrapolation from WWII unnecessary to explain his improvement.
Well, I don't know. And I don't know about Dempsey either. It makes at least as much sense about Walcott that he did not have an optimal diet back in the 1930's. I am not saying he was starving, but with a family to feed, and the economic conditions, I can easily believe he was not getting the nutrition an athlete competing at a high level should get. As for Dempsey, there were recent posts about him having a backer during his Salt Lake City days. That and the fact that he was a top local gate attraction make it unlikely to me that he was starving after 1916 or so. But there are those, and I don't know your views on the matter so you may not be one of them, who basically dismiss Dempsey's journeyman days, admittedly lasting for a far shorter period than Walcott's, due to him being unable to eat or train properly.
I never said anything of dying. Being kept out of the ring for five years as the vast majority of men who were fighters beginning in 1941 were is losing a generation of talent. A professional athletes prime is short and five years is a massive time away and out of contention. People love to go on about Ali being away from the ring for three years and how he was never the same. Imagine that same scenario for the majority of top fighters at the beginning of WW2. During WW2 African Americans accounted for 9% of the population of the United States and yet less than 1% of the US forces serving in WW2 were African Americans. This means there was a larger portion of them home to fight and a smaller portion of the talent that had previously been home. WW2 lasted four plus years for the USA. WW1 lasted 2 maximum (if you count post war activities and waiting to be mustered out) and most men serving did so for about a year to a year and a half at most. Your comparison isnt even close to valid. I dont just pick on Walcott. I pick on a lot of guys who were also-rans when the war started and then suddenly miraculously turned their careers around and became contenders just as the talent pool was syphoned off. Is this applicable to everyone? Of course not. Robinson proved himself by fighting a wide variety of extremely talented fighters across numerous weight divisions for 25 years. BUT trying to argue that Walcott was a diamond in the rough and wringing your hands over all of his losses throughout his career many of which came against mediocre fighters is not only ridiculous but simply doesnt jive with the facts or with the prevailing opinion of the time. Your attempt to draw my argument far and wide to encompass far more talented fighters wont work here. Im not biting. The cream, like Robinson, will rise to the top. However, the war created a situation where less talented fighters had more opportunities and less competition than previously. Thats not even a disputable fact. It just did. Pretending that all of these men simply came back after 3, 4, and 5 years off and picked up right back where they left off simply doesnt jive with reality. The late 1940s is littered with guys who entered the service well up in the rankings or champions who quickly found their skills had deteriorated and their age was now such that they were no longer the same fighter they were in 1941. You can go take a sampling of the top ten of Ring or the NBA from November 1941 and compare all of the names of the guys on those lists that went into the service and see how they did in 1946 and more importantly what they did professionally inbetween. The facts dont lie. The war blew a huge hole in the sport and that vacuum was often filled by guys who wouldnt have gone as far without the war keeping the top guys occupied. Is that a universal fact? Of course not. Are there exceptions? Of course. I never argued the contrary. But Walcott wasnt one of those exceptions and he wasnt some hard luck story. As I said, the guy, despite his flashy style, was beatable at every stage of his career and got more losing shots at the championship than most of the contenders in history.
Would you say Ezzard Charles actually benefited from the break in his career? Charles was 21 and burning out. His last two fights before entering the service were hard losses to guys he was able to beat. After the war Charles was bigger and stronger, now 24 rather than 21, a new prospect with previous experience.
At least half of Williams losses were at a higher weight,similarly at least ten of Gavilan's were at higher weights.
Okay. Gavilan did lose to some bigger men, but he started losing in 1954 to men his own size. Here are some weights I got from boxrec for the weights of Gavilan and his opponents in fights Gavilan lost. Gavilan's weight first: Johnny Saxton 146-146 Peter Waterman 147-147 Walter Byers 148-145 Ramon Fuentes 152-153 Del Flanagan 147-149 Gaspar Ortega 146-146 They didn't have the weights for Gavilan's loss to Tony DeMarco & two losses to Vince Martinez, but both men were welters and I don't think would have had significant weight pulls. Gavilan was clearly going downhill after 28 and the size of opponents was not the key factor. Williams did outgrow the lightweight division but I think it obvious he was also going downhill. What should be mentioned in a Walcott thread is that Walcott is the guy giving up gobs of weight and still doing well against the bigger men. Joe Baksi, Joe Louis twice, Ole Tandberg, Johnny Shkor, and Hein Ten Hoff was much taller and heavier men. In fairness, Walcott also had weight pulls himself at times. This is the nature of heavyweight boxing. Walcott was in the middle of the division in size and so some opponents were bigger, often much bigger, and some smaller.
First thing, I want to thank you for the in-depth and thoughtful replay. You make some strong points. I am happy a mortality argument is buried, as I think it makes no sense and is certainly beyond anyone's knowledge. Your points about African-American fighters during WWII are very interesting. While only 9% of the population, they were obviously a much higher percentage of the potential boxing elite, as top boxers coming from privileged backgrounds are unknown or almost unknown. Most top boxers have come from the hungry classes--African Americans and first generation immigrants trying to gain a foothold in the economy. When the immigrants did, they abandoned boxing. First the Irish. Then the Jews. Then the Italians. There were relatively few top Irish or Jewish boxers after WWII. Most American champions were either African-American or Italian American. So I consider a weakness of your case is that there was a tremendous influx of talent at the very time WWII hit. While it is true as you point out that so many white fighters being in the service opened the door to black talent, it does not follow that the white fighters being home would have stopped them. Let's take a look at who were the champions immediately after WWII in the six major American competitive divisions: Feathers--Willie Pep & Sandy Saddler. (An Italian American who came up during the war and an African-American.) Lightweights--Ike Williams. (African-American) Welters--Sugar Ray Robinson (African-American) Now Saddler, Williams, and Robinson would probably not have been champions between 1915 and 1935 as they wouldn't have been given the chance. Hardly convinces me they were inferior to the average white champions of that era. middles--Zale, Graziano, LaMotta, and eventually Robinson. Probably the best case for an argument that WWII weakened competition after the war if one tries to make that case. The African-American Robinson is the outstanding middle of this group. light-heavies--mediocre champions in Lesnevich, Mills, and to a lesser extent Maxim. But they were champions only because of avoiding defenses against Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. (the best in this division is again African-Americans) heavies--Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles (African-Americans) The best white fighter from the pre-war era who lost his career to WWII was Billy Conn. The Conn of 1940-1941 might well have been able to edge Charles and Moore out. It is at least within reason. But would Conn still have been the same fighter after 1946 even if there had never been a war and he remained active? Would that Conn have been able to handle the younger Charles when he was pushing thirty? Who knows? This argument seems to be that because Walcott was a journeyman in the 1930's the only reason he revitalized his career was the bottom falling out of the division during WWII. Well, honestly I'm not convinced that the inactive Joe Louis aside, the talent in the top ten of the heavyweight division in 1944-45 was inferior to what it was in 1940-1941, due to the influx of African-American talent. Also, Walcott continued to be successful after the war and into the 1950's. I concede that Walcott might be overrated by some, but also off film think he stacks up very well against the the white champions from the 1890's through the 1930's and would likely beat a solid majority of them.
