Ezzard Charles & Jersey Joe Walcott - can they make HW TOP 10?

for me ezzard is the greatest light-heavy ever and in the p4p top 10
walcott would give anybody sub 200lb a hard night but i don't think either are top 10 heavies !!

 

No

 

Walcott is in my top 12. I believe he has a better case than Ezzard. Walcotts run 1945-1947 where he cleaned out 8 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders(Tommy Gomez, Hatcetman Sheppard, Joey Maxim 2x, Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Lee Q Murray, Joe Baksi, Lee Oma)... is as good a run as any HW champion ever had. During this time Walcott beat the 3 BEST heavyweights of the mid 1940s duration era Jimmy Bivins Elmer Ray and Lee Q Murray. If you count the first Louis fight as a win(which you should), then that enhances his legacy further. Walcott should have been the first heavyweight champion to lose and regain the title. Other things that help Walcott: Walcott beat more big punchers than any heavyweight champion except Lennox and Ali. Tommy Gomez, Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Q Murray, and Elmer Ray were the biggest punchers of the 1940s and Walcott went 6-1 against them!) Walcott's performances against big heavyweights 6' + 200lb + was quite good and defeated talented rated big men. 6'2 213lb Joe Louis, 6'6 220lb Undefeated Hein Ten Hoff, 6'1 218lb # 6 rated Joe Baksi, 6'3 207lb Lee Q Murray # 3 rated, and tough fringe contenders 6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor 6'0 200lb Lorenzo Pack(100% knockout percentage) and 6'3 208lb Ollie Tandberg were all qualified big heavyweights Walcott either dominated/or competed very well against during his prime years. In fact counting the Louis I fight as a win, Walcotts career record against heavyweights 200lb + was 13-3!


Walcott also holds victories over 5 different hall of famers(Louis I, Bivins, Johnson, Charles, Maxim) and has beaten over a dozen Ring Magazine rated fighters during his career. Walcott proved his abilities vs fighters of all different sizes and styles.

I think what best helps walcott is that he beat top hall of famers coming off there career best win streaks........

1946 W 10 Jimmy Bivins- Bivins was 26 years old # 1 ring magazine contender and duration champion. Bivins was undefeated for the last 4 years and 40 plus fights, and Walcott ended this incredible winning streak.

1950 KO 3 Harold Johnson- Johnson was 28-1 22 year old future star trying to avenge his fathers knockout loss. Walcott floored johnson in the 2nd round with one big shot, and johnson didnt hurt his back till after he fell to the canvas during the knockdown.

1947 W 10 Elmer Ray- Herb Goldman rated Elmer Ray # 17 greatest Heavyweight of all time. Ray was coming off a 62-1 win streak going into the walcott bout and was Top rated contender by Ring Magazine, and had not lost a fight in 4 years...Walcott knocked ray down 3 times and avenged a loss to him ending Ray's incredible hot streak.

1951 KO 7 Ezzard Charles- Charles was Heavyweight Champion 8 succesful title defenses, Charles had not been defeated in 4 years since a close decision loss to Ray(which he avenged) and charles had been undefeated in over 20 fights since and at 29 years old was on the best win streak of his career.. Walcott flattened Charles with the perfect knockout punch ending charles long winning streak. First time ezzard had ever been knocked out for the 10 count.


1947 W 15 ?? Joe Louis- Louis was world heavyweight champion and had been undefeated for the past TWELVE years and 23 title defenses. If Walcott had justly got the decision, not only would this have gone down as one of the best performances ever, but would have ended the greatest title streak of all time!

And of Course he gets credit for being 2 rounds away from nearly ended Rocky Marcianos 42-0 perfect streak ahead on all 3 cards at age 38

This content is protected

Head to Head:

Walcott had the best footwork of all time, his amazing feints cute moves and upperbody movement made him a handful for any heavyweight puncher to hit cleanly, his chin during his prime proved very tolerable to big shots as walcott came out alive facing more punchers than anyone in heavyweight history(outside of ali and lennox) and was only knocked out by ATGs louis and marciano and it took them 23 and 13 rounds. Walcotts jab was one of the finest things we have ever seen, it was sharp fast and accurate...he even threw triple jab combinations that looked damm near unstoppable. He could jab with the best of the big jabbers and showed it on film vs 6'6 Hoff. Walcotts shuffle where he would fake walking away then come back with a counter trap is one of the best traps in boxing history, and multiple hall of famers walked into it. Walcott was very strong, Willie Reddish called Walcott and Liston the two strongest heavyweights of all time, and Walcott controlled strong men like Marciano well in clinches. Walcott could hit VERY hard with each hand, knock you out with one punch. Rated # 66 on Ring Magazine top 100 punchers of all time. His boxing skills were designed around cleverness and craftiness, but his textbook skills were oustanding too always keeping high gaurd, chin tucked, elbows in, threw straight punches etc. Despite his smallish size 6'0 195lb Walcott proved his ability vs all different styles he could fight aggresivley, or he could box. I think for reasons stated above, Walcott has the

This content is protected

out of all the 200lb boxers in history to defeat the ATG big heavyweights(holmes, lennox, bowe, foreman, liston, etc) and his style at his best ranks better head to head vs the rest of the heavyweight field than charles. Walcott has the Jab, Strength Punching Power that Charles doesn't have to beat the best of the big men. Charles was much greater fighter p4p though at 175lb.



Walcott # 12 Charles # 16

 

The phrase close but no cigar springs to mind.

There might be an alternative universe where Joe Louis took up figure skating instead of boxing. In this universe Jack Blackburn takes Joe Walcott under his wing at an early stage and made him into the first black heavyweight champion since Jack Johnson and a top 10 all timer.

 

I liked Charles and Walcott! They were both good Heavyweights! And I enjoyed Heavyweight boxing more with them in it than I would have without them!!!

However, Walcott would never rate higher than Dempsey on my list of all time Heavyweights! Dempsey is solidly included in my top 10; Walcott is not. And Charles does not make my top 10 either.

 

I like both men and I think they both had a chance to upset the best. I rate Walcott higher and usually fit him in to my top 10. He would be the ATG spoiler of the Heavys

 

Say Ezzard Charles during his title reign replace Lesnevich with Jimmy Bivins, replace Freddie Beshore with Clarence Henry replace nick barone with Rex Layne, replace lee oma with Bob Baker and Charles would have a good case for the top 10.

W 15 Jersey Joe Walcott - Wins NBA title

W Jimmy Bivins- Retains NBA title

KO 8 Pat Valentino- Retains NBA title

W Clarence Henry- Retains NBA title

W 15 Joe Louis- Wins Linear World Title

W Bob Baker- Retains Linear World Title

W Rex Layne- Retains Linear World Title

W 15 Jersey Joe Walcott- Retains Linear World Title

W 15 Joey Maxim- Retains Linear World Title


If Charles Did this, he would have a strong case for top 10 becuase he would have 8 succesful title defenses vs 8 ring magazine top 10 contenders including 4 title defenses vs hall of famers, and the other 4 vs PRIME young dangerous top level heavyweights

Then his 15 round grueller with Marciano while past his prime would help his case even more. Its too bad Charles management gave so many title shots to IBC controlled ham and eggers.

 

"Do you guys think that Walcott can be rated higher than Jack Dempsey?"

Walcott was great. In terms of natural ability (skills) he would could be Top 10 (not too many Heavyweights looked as cute, slick and tricky as Walcott).

But in terms as being HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION, he can not be rated above Jack Dempsey.

Look at the Box Office records Dempsey had for his fights. How many people lined up to watch Dempsey fight Tunney both times or Carpentier?

His destruction of Willard (you can say what you want about Willard, but he had a cast-iron jaw and good stamina. His win in the 26th round against a 37 year old past prime Jack Johnson is probably better than any win Walcott had pre Charles (if you don't include the first Louis fight). Remember Johnson was still undisputed Champion despite his decline.

Jack destroyed the giant in 3 rounds (a man who had never been floored).

Dempsey was a greater Champion than Walcott, people were still talking about Dempsey way after he lost the title, he was probably the most popular Heavyweight of all time before Joe Louis came along.

 

They dont get in my ten thats for sure.

 

Ok I hate to break it to you but Dempsey did NOT beat the version of Willard who beat Jack Johnson. That was a much lighter 1915 33 year old Jess Willard. Dempsey fought a FAT overweight 37 year old Jess Willard, who had been inactive for 3 years. and Quite frankly, even in his prime Willard was not a world class fighter. Willard was a tough farmer with a pitchfork, speaking realistically he did not know how to box, he was lucky he got the title shot in a fight to the finish and hes lucky he ducked fulton and all the other top black fighters. Willard would not do well in modern eras post 1940. I believe 6'6 220lb Hein Ten Hoff looked more talented on film vs Walcott than jess willard did on film vs Frank Moran.

Jack Johnson was 37 years old and had a tire around his midsection. Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Harold Johnson, and Jimmy Bivins would have all easily beaten that version of Jack Johnson.

 

"Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Harold Johnson, and Jimmy Bivins would have all beaten that version of Jack Johnson."

I don't even know if any of them could even beat the version of Willard that fought Johnson (put them guys in Johnson's place in that heat). Willard had a cast iron jaw and better stamina then the fighters mentioned above. Yeah yeah he lacked skills but remember, he could probably punch harder than Ray, Murray and Harold Johnson.

Don't doubt that Willard had power and strength and stamina despite his lack of boxing education. Any guy his size with his chin, power and stamina is not easy to beat.

Marciano wasn't as skilled as Louis, Charles, Walcott and Moore, but he beat them.

That fat Johnson you mentioned went 26 rounds. I doubt the 180 pound Bivins who wasn't a big puncher could beat Johnson that fought in Havana.

A fat Lil' Arthur was winning on points in the 26TH ROUND! Willard does not look too bad in that fight from a basic boxing point of view for his size.

Say what you want about Hoff, Murray, Harold Johnson, but they were never undisputed Champions. And i doubt they would be in any era.

Johnson fat? I agree. But he went 26th rounds in burning Havana heat. Name any of the fat bastrads you have today that can go 15 rounds let alone 26.

Willard had a better chin than many fighters. Look at the beating Dempsey gave him and he still got up. Who is doing that today in the Heavyweight division under those rules?

I have seen athletic giants like the Klitschko's gasp after a few rounds against lesser men than the 37 year old fat Johnson.

 

Top ten is too high for either of them but anywhere between 15-20 is fair for them.

 

First, we have to ask, could Walcott or Charles beat Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, or Lewis. It strains one's credibility to claim they could. So they clearly can't be top ten fighters.

Second, if we leave to one side all the heavyweight contenders who might rank ahead of Charles and Walcott and just consider the names of champions who were either around for awhile or accomplished something memorable, and here I'm thinking about Louis, Marciano, Patterson, Douglas, and M. Spinks, and ask the same question, it gets more interesting.

I don't think either of them beats Douglas or Spinks. As for Patterson, he beats Walcott, but probably has some trouble Charles. Charles was a lot better than Walcott. Both Walcott and Charles beat Louis, so we have something of an answer there. But Louis knocked out Walcott in the rematch, so that's out. However, Charles gave Louis as real beating, so if you are inclined to believe that Louis is a top 20 fighter, then Charles has something going for him right there. Neither of them beat Marciano. So excluding notable contenders, one can argue with some evidence that Charles is in the top 20. But not Walcott. He lost to Joey Maxim. A heavyweight who loses to Joey Maxim can't be a top 20 heavyweight. It's an iron law of the universe.