How would Walcott be if he came along in the 90s and got the same "medicine" that Holyfield did?

I dunno. What other heavyweight got repeated title shots after losing them?

Joe’s record in his last 10 fights when he won the title was 5-5.

He had lost two in a row.

Ezzard Charles had just beaten him by 8, 10 and 16 points on the scorecards and knocked Walcott down for a 9-count in a successful title defense … and “somehow” Jersey Joe got an immediate rematch.

That’s mob influence on a level that’s probably unmatched even in the checkered history of boxing.

 

Ok, but my point is not that Walcott wasn't mob connected, and maybe Walcott even got VIP treatment. My point is that he was not exactly an exception, because in the 50s the Mob was everywhere within the boxing world.

 

Walcott was coming off 2 losses. Charles had also won a tournament to face Walcott which knocked the other 3 participants down the rankings. You don't have to match 1 and 2 every time today people act like 1v2 is a binding covenant or something. Sometime around Klitschko v Chagaev everyone got obsessed with matching 1 and 2 and acting like 1 v top 5 was some miscarriage of justice. The IBC controlled boxing at this time there was usually one champion from this point to the foundation of the WBC with the exception of the BBBC once.

Scorecards and footage(highlights with commentary) don't indicate that. Many people thought Louis lost to Farr the ref thought Louis almost got a shutout and the judges had him up a few rounds. I don't know what judging system they were using in Michigan it wasn't 10 or 5 must but Charles won by 10,16 and 18 points. He scored a knockdown. The 1st fight was closer and that was no robbery. Also lets say you are right. This was Walcotts fourth title shot coming off a loss. Its like with Schulz at some point losing close fights over and over has to be on you. If you happened to score fight 3 for him at some point its got to be on him we can't keep doing this. And there were 3 belts+lineal then. This especially holds true in a one belt era where instant rematches should only be given out for truly controversial fights.

The big problem here is that others could have done the same with those abundant oppurtunitys and Walcott is considered one of the central figures of that era because he kept getting title fights and being competitive. If every time a fight was good we ran it back the sport would grind to a halt. The era of abundant rematches showed us if you give top fighters endless fights eventually B side will break through. And then you keep the chain going that never should have started. Cause when Walcott won now you have to give Charles a rematch cause he actually deserves one then it starts to snowball. At least with Holyfield everyone else was ducking each other or getting upset and it didn't really matter at least in terms of that era but here it really did matter.

And what of Marciano rematching Walcott for number 6? Yes I get he was a champion who lost his belt. But come on at least make him win a fight or two.

 

The mob ran boxing at this time but I think Walcott got his title shots organically at least most of them. Ex champs and familar names have gotten the title shots and rematches easier than up and comers in all eras because they make more money. We're seeing it now with AJ almost getting a Dubois rematch. Just not this many. 6. It started cause he almost beat Louis who hadn't lost in a decade. So he got the next one. Then Louis retired and since Walcott did good against Louis hes at the front of the line and is competitive against Charles who becomes a dominant champ. Before you know it the whole things spiraled out of control.

The truth is everyone involved in this era(1950s) was "mob connected" because the mob ran what was considered by the supreme court a monopoly on the sport. Whether they knew it or not they were dealing with those people. Which kinda makes what happened to Liston so unfair who actually reached the top when the mob(in boxing) were gone.

 

I’ve never seen proof that the mob ran every champion and hand-picked every challenger for every title defense. To say they controlled the sport is not the same as saying no fighter not controlled by the mob could ever get a title shot. We know some did … many, in fact.

Yet Walcott never got one until he signed with a mob manager. And then he was handed shot after shot even though he kept losing them. Not to mention he won at most three rounds vs Rex Layne and was rewarded with a title fight against Charles in his very next fight.

When Ezz beat him by a margin of an average of more than 10 points on every scorecard the first time (with Walcott coming off a loss, no less), he should have at the very least have needed to beat a top contender to get another.

But that’s not how it worked when you had the Mafia in your corner.

This seems to be a case of ‘Joe seemed like a good guy, let’s ignore that he’d have likely never been a world champ and the highlight of his career would have been giving a fading, aging Joe Louis a close fight if he hadn’t had some unsavory characters pulling strings to a ridiculous level to give him shot after shot until he came through.’

A thing is what it is. It is not something else. Walcott was a mob-controlled fighter whose entire legacy (beyond giving Louis a good go) was owed to the fact that he was repeatedly handed things he did not earn. He did not earn the first fight with Ezz (he was soundly beaten in his previous bout) and he damned sure didn’t earn the second by being knocked down and beaten by some of the most one-sided scores ever recorded in world title fight history.