Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles, who was the better heavyweight at their peaks?

Very difficult to choose between these guys.Two excellent fighters who tend to
get overlooked in heavyweight history.
I might just go for Jersey Joe.He was desperately unlucky not to get the decision
when he fought a still very formidable Joe Louis in 1947 and soundly outboxed
Marciano before the Rock landed that incredible punch in round 13.
But honestly if anyone else picks Ezzard Charles I wouldn't argue too much with them.

 

In the 1st 2 fights, Walcott primarily boxed off the back foot & tried to lure Charles into big countershots (much as he previously did vs. Louis), but Charles was able to take the play away from him both times. In the 3rd & 4th fights, Walcott fought much more aggressively & was sitting down more on his punches, which worked to his advantage. I also think Charles had slowed down a step in between the 2nd & 3rd fights, & in his intervening fight vs. Maxim, he was surprisingly rocked in the 9th round (7:32 of the vid below), which perhaps foreshadowed what was to come in his next fight. Based on reports & what's available on film, the 4th Walcott-Charles fight probably could've gone either way - Walcott pressed the fight throughout & worked the body well, but Charles arguably landed cleaner head shots while fighting off the back foot.

This content is protected

 

They are difficult to separate, both in their results vs common opposition, and their results vs each other.

You could perhaps argue that Walcott was older when these key fights took place, and therefore might have had a higher theoretical ceiling.

 

Charles was the more consistent fighter. But at their best they were close. All were competitive fights. Against the same opppnents they seemed to win most drop some avenge them. Walcott beat Bivins but never lost to him Charles beat Maxim but never lost to him. They both lost one to Layne and Ray. Very similar trajectories but Charles did get that clear win over Louis (Walcott may have to if he fought that version).

 

Charles their H2H might be tied but nothing else about this comparison is in any way close. Walcott is 2-7 in title fights even if he'd have beaten Louis under the 10-9 system Charles beat Louis without such asterisks. This matters more than it normally does cause Walcotts non title fights were 10 rounds and a lot of his best feats were competitive decisions. He evened the rivalry with Charles at 2-2 but he didn't deserve his 2nd and 3rd shots at Charles. He deserved the first shot at Charles cause he almost beat Louis but not only was he coming off the 2 losses to Louis he could have conceivably lost 7 in a row going into that fight with his 3 wins being close. And that fight would have made it 8. Walcott earned 6 title shots and 5 of them were coming off losses


To the contrary Charles has 9 title wins and the tournament wins over Baksi and Maxim. After losing his belt Charles won 4 12 rounders the title eliminator against Satterfield and added Holman and Brion. He also avenged his Bivins loss at LHW several times at HW.


Charles is overrated(hilariously so) at LHW but at HW hes probably the best HW of that period between Louis and Patterson and some will say hes better than Patterson. Charles certainly got a better resume than Marciano even if he lost. If Charles benefitted from entering HW as the belt returned he kept on top for years and proved his success was not because he was in the right place at the right time. Walcott benefitted from the timing of beating Ray and facing Louis and never proved this. He struggled chronically in the big fight but was capable of beating the best though he usually didn't. He lived off the Louis fight for years. Charles was not living off that one feat even if at the end he might have been living off being an ex great champion he was an ex great champion.

It might have been a small era but the late 1940s 1950s were a stacked time at HW Walcott didn't fight most of the people who deserved his title shots more and the one he did Rex Layne beat him with his eyes closed for which Walcott was promptly awarded 2 title shots. Charles didn't fight Clarence Henry whose probably the best HW to never get a title shot but he stuck around to fight most of that group. Now Walcott was late 30s and its not fair to compare their performance in this era 1/1 but Walcott was getting title shots over these people.


Walcott was seen as a journeyman at the time he fought. But hes benefitted greatly from the passage of time and "Jersey Joe Walcott" sounds legendary hes had duels with Louis and Marciano so thus hes a legend. I've gotten the impression Walcott has the reputation Braddock deserves and vice e versa(at least H2H). Not to mention the guys from his own era who didn't get the oppurtunities Walcott did for no reason other than luck and timing. Elmer Ray, Clarence Henry, Rex Layne are the first to come to mind. Walcott is mid 20th century Holyfield who got the most oppurtunities except Holyfield actually won half of them.

Now you could say Walcotts prime was during WW2 and he also got hurt by timing. This would be accurate. But theres many HWs in that boat who did not get Walcotts shots after the war ending and prime Walcott getting 6 title shots 5 coming off losses if WW2 never happened and Louis's reign continued is highly improbable. We've also got Archie Moore whose older who went almost undefeated at HW another decade after Walcott retired.

Walcotts Harold Johnson win was because of an injury and his Lee Murray win was because Murray was DQd for not trying. Putting it at the end cause this feels like a random point that doesn't jive with the other paragraphs. But those are two really good wins people will read off a resume that sound amazing that don't mean much.

 

Charles was better than maybe anybody at his peak… at heavyweight though? He was left wanting a little, his disease affected his legs first - for a boxer like Ezz it was consequential.

 

Charles was also suffering from the earliest stages of his affliction at HW.

 

Well said. Joe gets the ‘he beat Louis and got robbed rub’ but he lost title fight after title fight after title fight and his mob manager kept getting him pushed to the front of the line. Overall, his resume pales to Ezzard’s and also if you just compare their heavyweight ledgers. You spelled it out nicely.

 

About as close in ability as you can get between 2 people, so i voted Walcott to balance the poll

 

Having grown up in New Jersey, I have a soft spot in my heart for Jersey Joe Walcott. I managed to put that aside and voted for Ezzard Charles with my head. I would not argue with someone who voted for Jersey Joe. It is a close call head to head.

 

Charles was closer to 3-1 than Walcott. The third one was more the outlier where Walcott took the early lead and iced it. Against Louis and Marciano Walcott couldn't ride the early momentum to the win. Looking over the 2nd fight seems the same thing there. Its one of those reasons I hold a lot of his wins being 10 round decisions against him. But yeah it would be 2-0 if Walcott didn't get gifted the third title shot off 2 losses.

Boxer rec says some considered the second fight a robbery but Charles had a knockdown all the scorecards are lopsided in Charles favor and watching the highlights seems Charles is winning with Walcott having some moments earlier in the fight.

 

I think Charles has the overall better resume, but H2H, there isn't much between them.

 

This was the smallest era of HW in 40 years.

Charles got beaten badly by Bivins and Lloyd Marshall at LHW and at HW was dominant champ who won 11 15 rounders in a row. This does not include his 4 wins over Bivins. Going into the Valdes fight in 1953 he was like 39-4 at HW with 3 of the losses being very close decisions and no unavenged losses. After that he was sub .500. He was 32 at the time but he'd already compiled a great resume.

He avenged the Marshall losses at LHW but that and the 3 Moore wins are really carrying his resume at LHW.