I always see Walcott ranked amongst the greatest welterweights, but I don't recognize a lot of people on his resume. Which were his best wins? What makes them great?
I rank BJW #12 at WW based on fights that were contested at or around that weight. There are fighters higher on my WW list, who BJW would outrank on my p4p list, factoring in every fight each boxer had regardless of weight, because of the work BJW did beating bigger men in higher weight divisions. To answer your question, limiting my response to contests likely to have taken place at or around WW, I believe his best wins were: Billy Smith x 3 Young Peter Jackson x 2 Rube Ferns Mike Donavan x 3 Charlie McKeever Bobby Dobbs Mose LaFontise None meet my criteria as being "an ATG", though Billy Smith comes close. BJW lost just 1 of his first 47 fights contested at or around WW, to Billy Smith, whom he beat 3 times. Whilst his resume from those first 47 fights isn't filled with ATGs, there's plenty of fighters who should be considered world class for that time. So, being dominant in his prime against many of the other best WWs in the world, is what makes BJW a great/boderline great WW, imo. That's without mentioning his draw with my p4p #3, an admittedly pre-prime, but still outstanding Sam Langford, in defence of his WW crown. It's his victories over bigger and heavier men, when combined with his WW resume, that make him an ATG boxer, imo.
Before the second world war, there were people arguing that Smith was the welterweight GOAT. While I don't agree with them, he was unequivocally great.
What qualifies as an ATG in your opinion? Top 10 all time in one of the original weight divisions? Top 100 pfp? Where do you rank Billy Smith at WW and pfp all time?
I think that it depends on the weight class to some extent. There have been a lot more great welterweights than great heavyweights. In a division with a history as rich as welterweight, you would need to grant a lot more than ten fighters the accolade.
In that era alone you have Billy Smith, Tommy Ryan, and Walcott himself, and absolutely sick field beneath them. That is three great men right there, and the division has not exactly disappointed since. If you were going to have a great welterweight club, then it would need to have at least twenty names on it. If there was a rule that only twenty men could be in, then Smith would make the cut in my opinion.
Fair enough. Smith doesnt make my 20 at WW and as a rough guide, my interpretation of an ATG is top 10-15 in the original 8 weight divisions and c.top 100 or so p4p. So, whilst I have no problem with someone considering Smith as an ATG, it's not unequivocal, imho.
Your top 10-15 rule works very well in some weight classes, but it might not work so well in others. Saying that there can only be 10-15 great welters, would be a bit like saying that there could only be 6 great heavyweights. It would exclude some absolute titans of the division. In the Flyweight division you could probably find 10 greats in a single twenty year window. Not my place to tell you your criteria of course.
Absolutely not. What possible argument exists for putting Smith in with Ryan and Walcott? Billy Graham>Smith
It's a guide rather than a rule. Take c.top 100 p4p, a guide rather than an arbitrary absolute cut off, if you prefer. I doubt Smith would meet that criteria either, imo, though as I said in my opening post in this thread, I suspect he would be close.
Smith was a two time champion, in a very deep era, who fought other great fighters. It is not clear how many successful defenses he had, but it is at least ten, and it might be closer to fifteen in reality. Yes he lost the series against Walcott, but he also handed him an L on Boxrec.
Well let's just skip his two ill-advised comebacks in 1910 and 1915 AND the run-in prior to his first retirement where he won just one of his last seventeen fights, AND his inauspicious start to boxing, too, winning just half of his first twenty-two recorded contests...skip all that. Smith engaged in as many world-title contests as he suffered disqualifications and his final ledger is 5-2-2. This is not quite as good as Rube Ferns. His combined record against the other greats of his era (Ryan and Walcott) is 1-5-6, i think. That's an ATG record? Why would he rank higher than Mike Glover who went 2-1-4 against Britton and Ted Kid Lewis? He's in exactly the same boat isn't he? Except he got fewer opportunities and more wins? Smith is nowhere near.
