Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott

&? Joey Maxim lost to 22-21-2 Johnny Flynn.. does that override his wins over Patterson, Satterfield, Bivins, Lesnevich, Mills etc.. Dick Tiger has numerous losses to lesser opponents.. doesn't take away that like Maxim hes an ATG... as is Walcott.

 

Charles was much better. He has the softest chin of an ATG HW but he's an ATG HW. If you keep giving someone rematches eventually they'll win one especially if you match a nominal puncher with a faulty chin. And Charles despite being younger was declining faster. On the merits Walcott wouldn't have got a third shot Charles would have been up 2-0 and we'd never speak of this again.

Walcott got better by subtraction because his set of skills had more value in 1950's HW division then 1945's or 1940. The division got smaller his power started mattering. Despite this he got gifted the most title shots of any HW in history. He found that glitch where if you keep doing well in losses you keep getting credit without winning. Then you win so when you lose again in a competitive fight you stick around. Others would have done at least well with the chances he got.

Walcott had a few punches of the decade but they were spaced out like 5 years each. But this probably had something to do with the favorable treatment he received. Sheppard got a LHW duration title shot despite not being a LHW because he was exciting and people wanted to watch him. Walcott was a better version of that. The mob ran the sport at the time through the IBC and whether Walcott had anything to do with them or not it's hard to look at the treatment he got and come to the conclusion the mob weren't rooting for the guy.

 

No one discussed on this website is a journeyman. Sheppard is closer to that and he's nowhere near being a journeyman. They were making a point with poor word choice.

In powered Louis's HW division Walcott wasn't capable of contending. The Simon fight made that clear. But most everyone in that division quit in their mid 20s. And Walcott and Lee Savold(who was known for losing every big fight) were standing in the rubble to pick up the pieces. Despite this Walcott needed to be showered in title shots coming off losses and rematches of losses to rise above the fighters you describe. He was on their level but treated normally he's lucky to beat those guys 50% of the time except Sheppard.

The 10 round format also gave Walcott a better chance because he often was holding on against a comeback. Walcott snapped Bivins streak for example in a 10 rounder. If that fights 12 Bivins wins. Walcott lost all 3 of his 15 round decisions and blew two other leads past 10 rounds. At this time only title fights and elims were 12 rounds. There was a stricter system of 15(Title)12(Elim) and 10(everything else). But if every major matchup is 12 like today Walcott would never become the champion because he wouldn't be the number one contender when Louis came back and none of the next few years happen.

Sheppard only had a chance against the guys listed because of his power and him having a big moment and losing regardless was common. Sheppard hit harder then Marciano but Marciano was quite a bit better than him. Walcott I think was worse then Murray, Ray and Baksi but he'd get his 4 rounds consistently. Sheppard wouldn't unless he had the opponent hurt and was riding the momentum.

 

"If Walcott was not given title shots"
"If they were 12 rounders instead of 10 rounders" (on fights we have no footage of)

If your point needs six alternate timelines before it works, maybe it doesn't.

 

A chronicle of Walcott's unprecedented good luck.


1)Walcott rope a dopes Baksi after losing the first 3 rounds.
2)Walcott beats Murray because Murray is DQ'd for not trying. Murray was the largest opponent Walcott beat.
3)Walcott beats Bivins in a 10 rounder where Bivins would have come back with any more rounds. This is Bivins first loss in 27 fights and puts Walcott on the map. Bivins was the duration champ before that got scrapped. Today this fight would be 12 rounds.
4)Walcott loses to Maxim gets to fight Ray a fight he loses.
5)After the Maxim and Ray losses Walcott gets a rematch with Maxim. After winning said rematch with Maxim, Walcott gets rematch with Ray he wins and trilogy with Maxim he wins. This sets up his title shot at Joe Louis.
6)Walcott gets Louis rematch. This was totally deserved in isolation.
7)After the 2nd Louis loss, Louis retires and Walcott becomes the number one contender because he almost won those fights. While there's a four man tournament to name Louis's successor Walcott gets a buy to fight the winner who is Ezzard Charles. Walcott loses this fight which is his 3rd loss in a row.
8)After beating Tandberg Walcott fights Harold Johnson. Johnsons back gives out without being touched. Johnson is not given a rematch.
9)Walcott wins 3 tuneups before losing to Rex Layne. This is the least competitive loss Walcott's had on this list. Walcott is rewarded with a title shot against Charles.
10)After a 2nd title loss to Charles in competitive but not close fights Walcott gets a trilogy title shot which he wins. Walcott then wins the 4th fight with a declining Charles.
11)Walcott loses his title to Marciano then gets a instant rematch with Marciano. In isolation that makes sense. This is Walcotts 4th loss in 6 fights.

I don't think there's ever been a fighter whose legacy is so dependent on unusual circumstance. Holyfield comes close but Holyfield already had a HOF career before he started getting unwarranted title shots. That's kinda why he got them.

 

One note though is that a lot of observers felt they should have been 3-1 Charles.

 

That's because he was a middleweight.

 

He was HW sized for his very small era.

That also doesn't explain all the times he got KD'd by Bivins and Marshall. Including in the fights he won. Marshall wasn't a HW and Bivins didn't have HW power.

His chin wasn't bad but really none of the greats had a truly bad chin. If they did they wouldn't be greats.

 

Its your prerogative to rate boxers where you wish,I'm just pointing out Walcott was rather inconsistent.Losing to Simon and Fox can be explained away by the fact he did not have a regular diet or training regime,losing to Allen and Layne cannot.imo.
Flynn had 26lbs on Maxim,that may have been a contributory factor in his loss.

Nine of Tiger's early losses were pre prime,to men of then similar ability, when he was fighting in Nigeria and the UK for chump change,after he reached his peak he never lost to an also ran. Walcott has undergone a revised appraisal as to his abilities in the last 20 years,in the 60's he was seen as an average champ,a stop gap between Louis and Marciano,and to some extent so was Charles.

 

HeinTen Hoff would be the largest opponent Walcott beat 6' 3" 219lbs

 

Walcott's manager was mobbed up, his defence against Marciano was in Philly because his pilot had a criminal record and couldn't get a NY licence.
Felix Bocchicchio — Camden History

 

Very close,Fergy. I would give it to Ezzard by a whisker.

 

Murray and Hoff are both 6'3. But fair enough.

 

Hi Stevie.
Agree with you that Charles is the greater fighter, I would put more than a whisker between them myself, you can't discount the all too frequent loses on JJW early , or even mid career, 13 or so before Louis, maybe I am being too harsh, but I rate Charles quite a bit above JJW, just my opinion buddy.
stay safe.
Mike.

 

But Murray was 207 1/2lbs, whilst Ten Hoff was 219lbs.