The curious case of Jersey Joe Walcott and his prime.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by JohnThomas1, Jan 18, 2020.


  1. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    There's seems to be a serious lack of information and understanding (and plenty of misinformation) as to when Joe's prime actually was and why. I've dug up one of my old posts that was long lost on a late thread page. I think it's worth a thread of it's own especially given the tripe we see dished up on a daily basis.

    Ok i've gone and done some research as to why Walcott seemingly primed up latter than the norm and wasn't at his best at an age when he was expected to be in his physical prime. Scartissue and god forbid choklab were on the right track for sure.

    To keep it simple, and it is actually very simple -

    Walcott was destitute and struggling to put food on the table in his first career all the way to his 1940 "retirement". When he did get a bit of money e.g. $375 from beating Roxie Allen the money would be gone instantly to pay the grocery store, milkman, landlord and various other people as he was forever living in debt.

    This went on all the way to 1940. Throughout this first career he had little time to train let alone train properly and also struggled to feed himself. Obviously this stunted him severely and led to the guy underperforming by a long way. He was talented but in continual poor shape and not being brought along.

    The Pearl Harbour attack led to him getting a bit better wartime job. He was still living tough tho things were going a bit better.

    He took two fights in 44 as he needed some extra cash.

    The turning point of both his life and his boxing career came in late 44 when he was introduced to Felix Bocchicchio, a store owner, local promoter and president of an athletic club among other less savory things.

    Felix brought in a manager for Walcott, had his license re-instated and took care of he and his families financial burdens and set them up better.

    He then hooked him up with trainer Nick Florio who was experienced and held in high regard.

    Florio got him straight into a regular training and eating routine which would obviously make one helluva difference given his previous circumstances. Three square meals a day with lots of meat, vegetables and roadwork were a big part of the new regime.

    At this point Walcott was 30 and about to start realizing what true potential he had left.

    They gelled well and over the next few years worked on feinting and hand movements among other things and developed Walcott's shuffle and "walkaway". Walcott's only other world class training had been 12 months with Blackburn in his first career.

    So now he could concentrate on getting into good fighting condition on a semi-permanent basis. He still held his job but was able to do shorter weeks and put a lot more time into boxing.

    From here on it was mostly up and up for Walcott and all this comfortably explains why he peaked late in life, later than countless others had.

    Regarding the 46 losses - Post fight X-rays showed Walcott broke a bone in his left hand and injured knuckles on his right against Maxim. The decision was also controversial and the AP scored the fight for Walcott.

    The Ray verdict was fair but quite close.

    It's far from impossible Walcott was still improving a little.

    Walcott came back to beat both Maxim and Ray straight away in his next two fights. The Maxim rematch was also close.

    The Louis fight was next and I'd say Walcott due to the various factors outlined was now definitely prime from about 1946 with age slowly starting to collide with the career and lifestyle turnaround. It's fair to say Walcott stayed well above the level he had been pre 1944 for multiple years.

    Walcott was actually very consistent from 46 onwards. The only loss he had a solid favorite would have been to Rex Layne.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2025
  2. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    It's very straight forward stuff.
     
    thistle likes this.
  3. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,288
    23,240
    Jan 3, 2007
    Bingo...

    There are some who are hell bent on believing that the Walcott who became heavyweight champion of the world was the same man who lost to Abe Simon among others..... Not the reality...
     
    thistle, TipNom, Bummy Davis and 2 others like this.
  4. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    Exactly. His career is hardly complex after a little research. The facts are there. Who is going be be very good or consistent with no time to train and bugger all food.
     
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,288
    23,240
    Jan 3, 2007
    Walcott has one of the most non ideal beginnings for a world champion. In fact there were a lot of guys in the early half of the 20th century who started off that way.. Joe Louis was the exception not the norm.
     
  6. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    Very true. Thankfully opportunities opened up otherwise his unique abilities would have been lost to boxing. Makes one wonder how many others were out there that threw the towel in due to the circumstances of the times. Perhaps we missed some great fighters. It's probably odds on actually.
     
  7. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,288
    23,240
    Jan 3, 2007
    I think there’s a very strong probability of that.
     
  8. The Senator

    The Senator Active Member Full Member

    570
    856
    Dec 10, 2017
    Reminds me of Malcom Gladwell's writings on Market Capitalization and athletics, in that over time, society's gotten much more efficient at finding potential athletes. It'd make sense for a variety of reasons that as Walcott nearly slipped through the cracks, as did Braddock within the same rough time frame, that there were many, many more who could have achieved greatness, but were never given the proper opportunity to do so.
     
  9. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    59,136
    42,053
    Feb 11, 2005
    Yes, Walcott was the only boxer to struggle in the pre war years. In fact, he was the one, single victim of The Depression. Consider that The Depression was a major, tectonic event in 20th century history and Joe was its only victim. THAT is how bad he had it!
     
  10. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,288
    23,240
    Jan 3, 2007
    Yes.. The simple fact of the matter is, young men had to go find jobs to feed themselves and sometimes their families if they had one. That or they were in the military fighting a war. If you were 17-18 years old you weren’t living under your parents roof and working out in a gym. Guys like Walcott and Braddock ( and many others ) were working many hours a day in exhausting jobs and boxing on the side.. If a fight offer came along to make 25 dollars, you took the opportunity weather you were ready or not. Sometimes that meant performing while sick, injured, tired or untrained. You also never knew who the hell you were fighting nor anything about them as you didn’t have the luxury of sitting down for hours each day to watch film footage on high quality technology... very different times and very different world.
     
  11. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,288
    23,240
    Jan 3, 2007
    No he wasn’t... But he was one of the few to rise significantly among his circumstances... Now contrast this to Mike Tyson... He was taken into the custody of Cus D’Amato from a juvenile detention center when he was around 13 years old.. given a roof over his head, plenty of food, and did nothing from the time he was 13 to age 20 but train to be a fighter every day and under the tutelage of a world class trainer... Yet BOTH Walcott and Tyson were world champions.. who had the harder road ? Who benefitted from more advantages ?
     
  12. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    What's that got to do with Walcott and his late prime tho? Keep grinding that axe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  13. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    51,339
    41,244
    Apr 27, 2005
    This content is protected
     
  14. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,364
    17,916
    Oct 4, 2016

    Without question Joe could have been far better had he had those type circumstances. What if Sonny Liston had been introduced to boxing early and turned pro at 20 years old?
     
  15. young griffo

    young griffo Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,375
    6,896
    May 18, 2006
    It might explain why his career was hit and miss throughout that era though.

    Inconsistent training = inconsistent results and yes he wasn't the only one. But inconsistent means exactly that. His results were sometimes good and other times surprisingly bad. But it's pretty clear going by his steady progression after a 4 and a half year break that there is no doubt the Depression and the hardships he endured hindered him as a fighter.

    There's no way the Walcott who lost to Simon schools Joe Louis or KO's Ezzard Charles, he simply wasn't at that level then, it's obvious and that's because while he was fighting professionally he sure wasn't training or living that way.