Could Jersey Joe Walcott Have Being a ATG?

So did Armstrong, Robinson, Bivins, Ezzard, Greb etc

Gotta take prime years into account. Hell even in this era Pacquiao and Wladimir lost to fighters with journeymen type records, that's not the full.picture though.

 

The records of the guys that you mentioned are not even similar to walcott's

 

A case? It is a fact that He was not an atg

 

I love his style. I gave him the first Louis fight no doubt about it to me.
Also take into consideration alot of his early losses were often fights on a couple days notice at best and he more often then not was hungry as he made sure his family was fed. I read his bio and he had it really tough for a long bit. A helluva good man. I c your point though.

 

I don't reckon lows negate highs.

 

What the **** damn guy?

 

I'd have to say he isn't an ATG in my book ,but I'm very parsimonius with the word.

 

Agree with this. Hit his prime late. Had he a better chin there wouldn’t be a question if he was an ATG but def on the fringe.

 

I don't think there was much wrong with his chin he fought plenty of punchers.

 

Very true. Was more a reference to had he pulled through in some fights he would have won and built a stronger case for himself

 

Of course not, they are all different. Just goes to show fighters can peak differently. What they do in their peak is what makes the difference.

Walcott has wins over 2/4 ATGs in Ezzard, Bivins and if you count the Louis win and if you have Maxim there as well.

Then another few top wins on top of that plus winning a bona fide world title.

 

I dont know that he necessarily hit his prime late, I think it was more of he got his opportunities late.
He was probably prime when he fought Louis the first time 5 years earlier.He was 38 when he fought Marciano,I don't accept any fighter is prime at that age.

 

I see. I have a better understanding of what you're getting at, now. I can't claim to be an expert on Walcott's life, times and career; particularly, his early fights and I would have to study these aspects to form a picture and opinion on 'what could have been'.

Some of his early losses seem intriguing. The defeat to Maxim in '46 seems a bit dubious. I am also aware of references to his hands getting damaged in fights at around the same time, e.g. his subsequent defeat to Ray.
With the toolset that Walcott would develop, it's not inconceivable that he might have been more successful, earlier - if in better care/management. But to what, if any, extent, I could not say.

Ultimately, Walcott made his name through his tussles with titanic names. There's no shame in his Losses to Louis (one a close decision) and his quadrilogy with the significantly younger Charles, ending with him taking the latter two battles, actually helps with elevating his status, in my opinion. In his first meeting with Marciano, he stretched Rocky further than he'd ever been taken before, at that point. Walcott was, by then, an old man by any standards - even as a late bloomer.

His losses are a source of some frustration, for sure. On balance, however, I think he's up there with the best, despite them.