Barbados Joe Walcott, top 5 at 147?

The praise of this fighter was HUGE and started with Jack Johnson who claimed hedda KOed Harry Greb.

 

I think so, Nat fleischer had him # 1< charley Rose had him top 5, good enough for me.

 

Maybe so,but Jack Johnson after sparring with Greb,also said "Harry Greb is the fastest man I ever saw ". For what it's worth.

 

I'd have him top five.

 

This.

Due to an admitted lack of knowledge on some of his Welterweight opposition, he ranks inside my top 15 P4P all time.

I mean Choynski??? WTF, and the 5'2 midget jumped in the air and beat the **** outta' him

A beast. But I find it hard to rank him just as a Welter, I'd chuck him in the top 10 just for the benefit of the doubt mind you.

 

him beating choynksi is ridiculous considering his weight.

langford steadily moved up but walcott was a WW, no right twatting the man who would twat jack johnson.

 

That was actualy a prety darn deep welterweight division, arguably the greatest ever, though Walcott had the scars on his resume to show it.

Mysterious Billy Smith was in the discussion about the greatest welterweight of all time into the 30s. Dixie Kidd was apearing on a lot of top 10 lists well into the 20th century. Tommy West was one of the greatest welterweights never to win the title.

It is unfortunate that the two greatest welterweights of the era (Walcott and Tommy Ryan) never met.

 

J, very true statement about Ryan's great rival ,Mysterious Billy Smith. One of the roughest and toughest fighter ever. Billy Smith was so Mysterious, that his own mother didn't know him .atsch

 

You can thank Ryan for that. Walcott chased him at both welterweight and middleweight, eventualy giving up and chasing the heavyweights.

 

Jack McAuliffe said that he would have beaten Max Baer!

 

I'm aware of just how highly regarded Smith was.

Can you guys explain to me how it's so hard to split Walcott and Ryan though? Appreciate any info.

 

Their resumes have different strengths and weakneses.

Ryan is utterly consistent at welterweight, vs the best of the era.

Walcott is more hit and miss at welterweight, fought under less favourable circumstances (cuffed etc), but did a lot more than Ryan in the higher weight classes.

Walcott basicaly split series with the top three light heavies of the era.

Heavyweights who refused to fight him included Marvin Hart.

 

Walcott was certainly nowhere as clever and skillful as Ryan. And I think the latter could have solved the puzzle of height difference better than bigger men who faced Walcott.