Just to give his pre and post war career some perspective, lets look at the rankings of the period. As usual losses are This content is protected , wins are This content is protected , and split series are This content is protected . As you can see Walcott only fought two men who featured int eh end of year rankings before the war, during the same period. Both of them beat him, and he didn't meet either at the high point of their career. 1936 Jim Braddock, Champion Max Schmeling Joe Louis Gunnar Barlund Jack Trammell Maxie Rosenbloom Ray Impellittiere Leroy Haynes Sonny Boy Walker This content is protected Arturo Godoy 1937 This content is protected , Champion Max Schmeling Tommy Farr Nathan Mann Alberto Santiago Lovell Tony Galento Jimmy Adamick Lou Nova Bob Pastor Roscoe Toles Andre Lenglet 1938 This content is protected , Champion Lou Nova Max Baer Bob Pastor Tony Galento Maxie Rosenbloom Len Harvey Clarence (Red) Burman Roscoe Toles Gus Dorazio Tommy Farr 1939 This content is protected , Champion Tony Galento Bob Pastor Lou Nova Tommy Farr Max Schmeling Johnny Paychek Red Burman Gunnar Barlund Roscoe Toles Lee Savold 1940 This content is protected , Champion Max Baer Arturo Godoy Red Burman This content is protected Buddy Walker Buddy Baer Pat Comiskey Lee Savold Otis Thomas This content is protected
Now compare this to his post war activity. This content is protected himself is in yellow, now that he is actually getting ranked. Just look at how many of the top ten he beats in this period. Even if he had never held the title, he would have geone down as one of the best contenders in history! 1944 This content is protected *, Champion Melio Bettina Tami Mauriello This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Jack London This content is protected Al Hart Buddy Scott 1945 This content is protected , Champion Billy Conn Tami Mauriello This content is protected This content is protected Bruce Woodcock This content is protected Freddie Schott Arturo Godoy This content is protected This content is protected 1946 This content is protected , Champion Tami Mauriello This content is protected This content is protected Bruce Woodcock This content is protected This content is protected Melio Bettina This content is protected Joe Kahut This content is protected 1947 This content is protected , Champion This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Pat Comiskey This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected Bruce Woodcock Phil Muscato 1948 This content is protected , Champion This content is protected This content is protected Lee Savold Johnny Flynn This content is protected This content is protected Joe Kahut Rusty Payne Pat Valentino Freddie Beshore 1949 Title Vacant This content is protected This content is protected Turkey Thompson This content is protected Bruce Woodcock Lee Savold This content is protected Pat Valentino This content is protected Roland LaStarza
So my conclusion? This potential stick to beat Walcott with comes at a price. It cannot be had without giving a massive boost to the previous era. Personally I do think that Farr, Nova, Pastor, Godoy and Conn, were better than Baksi, Omma, Murray, Maxim and Ray, but were they better by enough to explain the difference in Walcott's results? That seems a bit of a stretch to me!
I find it ridiculous to suggest a guy who had been fighting for a decade before the war started hit his prime another 6 years later. Its also pretty weak to say "well, the depression was on and he had it rough, when things got better so did he." as if his career took place in a vacuum and he was the only fighter who had a rough way to go during that period. Can anyone show me that every loss on his record was to a guy who had a measurably easier life when those losses took place? I didnt think so. It was a level playing field in regards to how difficult the times were. Walcott wasnt an anomaly. Ive made this point before in regards to guys like the murderers row and others have made the same argument here but the fact is that these guys who were relative non-entities prior to the war climbed the ranks easier and faster in the immediate aftermath of the war because all of the divisions had been depleted. Thats not debateable. Its a simple fact. Janitors exercise in posting the top ten lists bear this out. Notice how not only is Walcott not rated but he also has zero wins over anyone who is prior to the war. The only fights he had with rated fighters he lost and he lost to several guys who werent rated. Suddenly at the close of the war and beyond he starts beating rated fighters. Just look at those names. Most of those guys were mediocre HWs at best who wouldnt have made the rankings in Louis' prime before the war. For example Ray was actually older than Walcott, several of those guys were little more than blown up light heavyweights who were middling HWs at best, and then you list a guy like Gomez who was a protected hype job similar to Lamar Clark. Several of those guys lost to fighters rated far below Walcott under similar circumstances right around the time that Walcott beat them illustrating that despite their rankings as shown here. And finally, and I will hammer home this point every time I see it: The rankings listed above were taken from the Ring Annual rankings. A. The Ring rankings were unofficial and did not dictate who was actually rated. B. The Ring Annual rankings are nothing more than a snapshot of the Rings rankings at the point that the magazine publishing the annnual rankings came out. Simply because the Ring may have rated a fighter in the month that those annual rankings were published it doesnt mean that fighter was actually ranked when Walcott fought them.
At the time, I think some experts expected that after World War II there would be a lot of younger fighters who would quickly develop into leading contenders and supplant the fighters who had excelled before the war. What actually happened was just the opposite. The war stopped cold the development of new fighters so that the older fighters had a new lease on life and continued to dominate all divisions for more than five years. It took that long for the new blood to flow.
It's quite frustrating you ignore the fact that during Walcott's supposed blossoming second career his winning percentage was halved from what it had been during his dark, struggling period. Yes, his competition got better, but he did not. He was the same fighter with the same holes in his game. Furthermore, your assessment flies in the face of what contemporary writers said of Walcott's emergence as a contender, namely that he didn't so much rise to elite status but that elite status retreated to him. Was there some insight they did not possess that you have gathered 70 years hence? Face it, the post War/ early TV years were lean for heavies. Geriatrics, blown up lightheavies, great white dopes who got exposed... they were all there.
I don't agree that there was a level playing field during this era. I think that the fighters who had a manger, and good financial backing, had an enormous advantage over those who did not. No I don't think that Walcott's case was unique, I see a very similar story with Elmer Ray for example. I agree that the pre war era was stronger, as I have already pointed out, but I don't think that this is sufficient to explain the dichotomy between Walcott's pre and post war results. You are talking about a man who was barely a third rater in era A, being a dominant contender in era B. If the post war contenders were such a bunch of cans, then surely somebdy like Lee Savold would have cleaned out the division? He at least was competitive with the pre war contenders! This would amount to the biggest gulf between two adjacent eras, in the history of the sport, and the implications would be huge! Walcott cast a long shadow on the divisions, with his victims knocking over contenders up to the 1960s! If your premise is correct, then it would not only have implications for the quality of the imitate post war era, but also the 50s, and perhaps even the early 60s! It would be impossible to escape the conclusion that the pre war era, was one of the strongest in the history of the division.
Winning percentage is a highly misleading statistic, as you very well know. Of course a man who is fighting ranked contended and champions, is likely to loose more than one fighting unranked men. Yes a very crucial insight in fact! I can see into their future, and they can't. I know how everybody in that era's career was going to pan out. I would refer you to my response to Klompton. Walcott's victims were toppling contenders into the early 60s! The implications of what you describe could not be confined to that era. Now if Joe Louis dominated a strong era, as you seem to be implying, then he becomes a lock for the status of GOAT at heavyweight. The arguments for an alternative GOAT, largely turn upon the assumption that his era was weak, or at best middle of the road. Are you willing to bite that particular bullet, just to throw Waloctt under a bus?
The argument that Walcott suffered because of The Depression reminds me of the Robinson-Maxim fight. Everyone wants to insist that the reason Ray lost was that he was exhausted from the heat... as if Maxim had an AC unit propped in his corner.
OK, so if Walcott really did reach his full potential in the pre war years, then please take that argument to its logical conclusion. This must have been a pretty formidable era then right?
So show me all of these fighters Walcott lost to who had these wealthy benefactors that were lavishing money, food, and amenities on them. Until you can do that, and you cant, your point is a non starter no matter how much you believe it. Calling Walcott a dominant contender post war is laughably absurd. He was the exact opposite of a dominant contender. He lost to an old Ray and LHW Maxim, beat them in three follow up bouts by as narrow a decision as you can win, with a single round the deciding factor in his favor in all three bouts. Then lost to an old comebacking Louis twice despite a good effort the first time around. When Louis retired he lost to blown up LHW Charles and beat a weak series of HW opponents the best of which was a green LHW Harold Johnson before losing clearly to Rex Layne, the best young HW he had faced in years. Then he lost again to Charles, stopped Charles, and then won a very debateable decision in the fourth fight. Before losing twice by stoppage to Rocky. It took the guy five tries at the title and numerous mediocre performances against relatively low quality heavyweights (and applying that term to some of those guys is generous) before he got his title which is exactly the point. In how many eras can 35 or older guy get four shots at the title in five years in an era with one title holder? That right there tells you how weak the division was at that time. The fact that guys like Charles, Bivins, and Maxim were moving up and having some success is further evidence. There is a reason why people during his time who saw more of him than the armchair experts today werent impressed with Charles as a champion. They knew what you deny, that he moved up to and lorded over a division that was largely devoid of talent and this lack of talent allowed a 37 year old man who was never a world beater to get five shots at a title and actually win one. Who of Walcotts victims were knocking over contenders up the sixties?? Every single one of them with the exception of Harold Johnson was washed up by the mid 50s at the latest and I wouldnt be holding up a young Harold Johnson as proof of Walcotts heavyweight credentials.
To use a relevant example, you would be on fairly safe ground saying that Abe Simon enjoyed more favorable early career circumstances. If a contender has beaten most of the other men int the top ten at some point, then they are a dominant contender. OK so it was a weak era! So what? The problem with that argument is, that no era is all that weak. Even on that basis, you would expect somebody to emerge who would do better, given his pre war record! There is no way to blow Walcott up, and confine the blast damage to the late 40s! Ezzard Charles who can't have been a lot better, was a top contender into the mid 1950s. Harold Johnson was beating guys like Machen and Jones in the early 60s! No it is not just the fact that Wlacott beat him, its also his subsequent results against Walcott's peers. The shadow cast by Walcott is a long one!
I love these notions that it took Walcott 5 times to win the title. While factually true, it seems rather disingenuous to me because it ignores vital context. I could say it took Whitaker 2 times to get the better of Ramirez. Just like I could say it took Lewis 2 times to beat Holyfield. All factually true, but it paints a picture that is disingenuous. I've posted the newspaper decisions for Walcott vs. Louis 1, and they were decidedly in favor of Walcott. Some even having him win by 9 rounds, 8 rounds, 7 rounds 6 rounds. Louis had no such scores in that range. None. Most of the minority who scored it for him did so by 1 round or 2, and Walcott still had more of those. Most of the rounds Louis won on most of the cards were the last 3 rounds. Rounds Walcott coasted in thinking he was well ahead having already dropped Louis 2 times with nothing in return. When the press has him winning by 9 rounds with a scores of 12-3 or 11-2-3... with Walcott coasting at the end, how dominate were those early rounds? I'd say rather dominant, and he had every reason to believe he was well ahead, the majority of press thought the same. Yet it seems genuine to say, it took him 5 times to win the title, when in actuality, it probably should've only taken him his first time. Then the old, well even a old Louis KTFO Walcott, to make it seem like he really wasn't that good, and an old Louis was still better. Again disingenuous, considering he likely won but a decent margin in fight no. 1... and in the second fight, again, he was comfortably ahead. He had outboxed Louis for going on 25 rounds. Never getting dropped, and dropped Louis 3 times. Of course he was very confident. It seemed easy in there for him against Louis. He then gets cocky, starts showboating and dropping his hands and gets caught. Cool, but to me, with proper context, I wouldn't try and argue Louis was his superior at that stage having been comfortably out boxed for almost 2 full fights. I also love the notion that Walcott now didn't have circumstances that accounted for some early losses. People keep saying, oh, it was like that for everybody it was tough times. The economy could be the same for everybody, the talent pool could be the same for everybody. This could all be true for all, but some still having it better than others. Because a economy is going through a recession, does that mean it's the same for everybody living in the country going through a recession? That logic is disingenuous at best, ******ed at worst. His results clearly improved vs. ranked contenders when he started training regularly and getting proper backing. Those are the facts. To try and paint it like he was the exact same fighter before and after is hilariously ******ed.
Walcott got five shots at the title for a reason. It took five title shots to resolve the issue, and of course the fifth title shot didn't resolve the matter, because Walcott won!
Walcott's title fights simplified: Louis I (controversial win for Louis) Louis II (clear cut win for Louis) Charles I (clear cut win for Charles) Charles II (controversial win for Charles) Charles III (clear cut win for Waloctt) Charles IV (controversial win for Walcott) Make of that what you will!
