Is Jersey Joe Walcott an ATG?

No. Post Tommy Burns what lineal champs would you pick Walcott to beat? Its either no one or you've got 1 or 2.

Now in terms of if you need to bring him up to tell the story of the sport thats a different question. But part of that is Walcott getting 5 title shots off losses. Walcott was capable of hanging with ATGs but so were a lot of fighters in his era that didn't get the oppurtunities or recognition he did.

 

Theres another side of this coin though and Walcott would have taken even more losses early if it had been the 12 round era.

 

Well let me put it this way, if we had anyone as smart as Walcott today in the HW scene they’d run the table.

 

I would argue that he most surely was an all-time great based on a number of factors.

1. Vs Joe Louis 1- many people thought it was a bad decision hence the rematch.
2. Rocky Marciano- gave him all he could handle even dropping him before losing. Not many people dropped the Rock much less beating him until getting knocked out.
3. Ezzard Charles - knocked Charles out to win the heavyweight championship. And did it at an advanced age.
4. Also beat Harold Johnson,Joey Maxim, and Jimmy Bivins as well.

 

Whatever ATG means, I'd say yes.
He was the oldest boxer to win the HW Championship until Foreman who fought under more modern conditions and in the 4 belt era. Walcott was one of the greatest stylists as well and thus an inspiration for Ali (e.g. the Shuffle). He had some losses but also a number of good wins that not many HWs can compete with: 2 x Charles, Ray, Bivins, Johnson, Maxim, Murray, Sheppard, Baksi, Tandberg... + he gave Louis and Marciano hell.

 

He wouldn't have gotten the Charles wins if he didn't get title shot he didn't deserve coming off 2 losses.

He would have lost to Bivins if the fight was 12 rounds. He was blowing a lead. Given Bivins was on a 26 fight win streak and had been duration champ this fight really should have been 12 rounds.

Murray was DQd for "not trying".

Johnson got injured during their fight.

Maxim won the clearest fight of their trilogy. Most of Maxims fights with elite HWs were close decisions.

Sheppard was Chisora of this time everyone beat while putting up a good fight.


The Louis he gave hell to didn't have the power he had earlier. While Walcott would have won the 1st fight under todays system he lived off that the rest of his career IMO.

I reckon theres quite a few fighters from this era who could give Marciano hell Marciano didn't fight.

Baksi, Ray I Oma and Tandberg are a fine 4 clear wins but while Walcotts SOS was high he went about .500 against top opponents. By my count 15-13 against HW and LHW contenders and I'm counting Sheppard, Tandberg and Steve Dudas here. He was 2-6 in his title fights and got 5 title shots coming off losses. My biggest problem with Walcott isn't that he wasn't elite but that many could have done the same or better with the oppurtunities given to him and he did nothing to stand out from the pack but was in the right place at the right time.

Sidenote.
Walcott had the clean KO over 8-7 Ray in 1937. I think Ray was better than Walcott during the mid 40s but also agree it was right to give Walcott the close third fight with the knockdown. My bigger problem is like the Bivins fight the 3rd Ray fight really should have been 12 rounds. 10 rounds are really not enough to decide high stakes matches between closely matched fighters.

 

Ironically, for me, he's like Norton - almost but not quite. I would give absolutely zero grief however to anyone thinking either or both sneak into ATG territory.

 

Did you just call one of the most skilled heavyweights ever a journeyman?

 

For me he is absolutely a HW ATG but I understand why many would find him hard to rank. Some abysmal losses and a very ordinary record on paper. He was less than 9 minutes from beating a consensus top 10 ATG HW in Marciano before Suzie Q struck gold. His boxrec just doesn’t tell the full story. He was a classy and crafty HW that did his best work very late in his career and was one of many outstanding boxers of his era that were heavily impacted by WW2 and time spent inactive. JJW would have been competitive at his best in any era up until the dawning of SHWs. Arguably beat Joe Louis in their first fight and was hard done by in the decision. Decisively lost the rematch. Split a series with Charles 2-2.

For me he fits in the top 25 but can totally understand why some would have him ranked far lower than that.

 

He's a borderline lower end imo. I'd entertain an argument but on first thought would probably have him falling slightly short in terms of achievement as some have already said. I do think without a doubt though that he had historically excellent ability and skill at the very worst with a good argument for being a great fighter in that regard even if his achievements were a bit hit and miss. In and around his size he'd be a hard man to beat more often than not imo if focused and well-prepared. His mid-late career bears that out I think. No man his size less than an excellent fighter imo consistently holds up against the likes of Marciano and the older versions of Louis and Charles while beating the likes of Baksi, Maxim, Ray, Bivins etc albeit with context.

He's hard to assess in that we probably never saw his full potential due to his very hard early life with his physical prime and apex of learned craft being separate from each other.

As an aside, a few c*nts on here could do with starving themselves for a couple of days in winter, knocking off the power, hot water, heating etc in their houses and generally subsisting on a low nutrient diet when food does come and then stepping into a professional boxing ring and see how they like it.

Comforting to see that Seamus still fails at trolling where Walcott is concerned and gives off the slight air of a literate but pompous blowhard in need of a good mirror.

 

Excellent.

funny though, there would still be a lot of people today who would give a vote for a Fury, yet ignoring the Walcott record as far superior.

 

From 44 to 52 he beat everyone he fought apart from Rocky, Louis and Layne.

The Layne loss is a bit of an issue, the other two are just greater fighters.

But for me, Jersey is a great fighter, definitely on the lower end though.

 

Well, it's all in the eye of the beholder. You can focus on the positive aspects or on the chain of negative things/interpretations.

Different fighters have different careers: Andre Ward (like it was made from one piece), Fritzie Zivic (rugged with many losses) or Nicolino Locche (controversial decisions)... They were all outstanding though.

Walcott was a late bloomer with many ups and downs (black, family matters, poverty, jobs, war, Bocchicchio).

I had an old IBHOF Record Book with careers of HOFs + there rated opponents (from The Ring mag) were marked as well. If I remember correctly, Walcott had more notable wins than many other great heavyweights (including Frazier, Liston, Foreman, Marciano, 30s champions...) But don't hold me here accountable. This was a personal impression and from memory.

I think the later half of the 1940s/early 50s (from Louis to Marciano) was a pretty strong and underrated era as well.
+ In my book he is also special based on the eye test.

Last but not least a quote that suits him:
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”
- Nelson Mandela

 

This is where we get into what an old friend and me call the Space-Time Continuum of Sports.

Change one thing about a fight/game/match and it alters everything else.

Marciano probably turns it up sooner in a 12-round fight. We cannot assume if that fight had been scheduled for 12 that it would play out like rounds 1-12 did in the scheduled 15-rounder.

Today’s 12-round championship fighters go at it at a faster pace, generally, than a lot of the more methodically 15-round champs of the day like Alexis Arguello and so on … they knew the championship rounds decided the fight and usually kept something in the tank for it. Same fighters generally put their foot on the gas earlier in bouts scheduled for 10 or 12, so we know they were capable.

I don’t see any legit argument that we cut off a bout at 12 rounds when in reality it went 15 or ended after 12 that it would have played out exactly the game and we just go to the cards after 12 with those rounds as they played out in reality.

 

Yeah, therefore Walcott's status as ATG is an open question; and that is OK taking into consideration how his boxing career developed on a very unorthodox path and is quite difficult to evaluate under normal parameters.

Thus, somebody can argue that Walcott is an ATG, while somebody else cand argue that Walcott is not an ATG.
Both takes are OK, depending of criteria, approach and perception.

In any case it is undeniable that Walcott was a dang good boxer and historically he hangs out there in good and selected company.