Is Jersey Joe Walcott an ATG?

I guess it depends on how far down the list of ATG heavyweights do you go before you stop labeling them ATGs?

Is it someone that could be champion in any era? Someone that could compete well at any era? A certain number down your personal or the generally accepted rankings?

I feel like when I hear “ATG” I think of guys of a higher caliber than Jersey Joe, as good as he was, take nothing away from him…. But I haven’t thought much about it either.

 

Dude lost ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE TIMES he stepped into the ring. The very definition of a journeyman. He was an all time nice guy and that was about it.

 

He's on the cusp ... people look at the bottom line of his record, but don't consider the context for the first half of his career, before his four-year hiatus to work in a war plant, he was pretty much a semi-amateur jabroni just trying to put food on the table and survive; he lost 10 fights as well in the second half of his career, when he was actually a full-time prize fighter and had access to proper training resources, but they were to much better competition, primarily ATGs, plus IMO the first Maxim fight was probably a robbery and he beat the caca out of Layne and bloodied him up badly, even though Layne certainly won the fight on one of the best nights of his life, they almost stopped it late with him ahead because he was cut so badly.

Honestly, it depends on how deep you want to go for ATGs. Top 25? He's not there. Top 35? He's getting close. Top 50? He's absolutely there.

And as I've said in previous Walcott threads, peak Jersey Joe was a tough night at the office for anybody. Joe Louis found that out.

 

And he had a great moniker...

 

No definitely not he had a rough start to his career and should be credited for having a good career in the end. But he was far too inconsistent to be labelled an ATG IMO.

His longest winning streak was 1 year which puts into perspective he was too much of a win/loss type of fighter.

Good fighter who had some very good wins but he also lost to fighters he shouldn't of lost to and for me he quite clearly falls short of being an ATG.

 

Of Course he is...

he is one of Greatest Fighters in Boxing History, and it is clearly visible in all of his fights, win or lose!!!

 

No, any close examination of his record says so ..

 

He was a late bloomer. A journeyman would not have looked so good on film.

Is he top 10? Not a chance?

top 20? probably not.

top 30? Yes. A very good case can be made here. He struggled early in his career because he wasn't even a proper pro.

 

In my book he is not a full ATG; but he is close.

Walcott's status is kinda similar to Norton, Pryor, Douglas, Bowe, etc. in the fringes of being a full ATG

 

I'd say so just based on his wins and becoming the champ

 

A lot of fighters from the 12 round era are ATGs. If Joe is a 12 round fighter, he has two wins over Charles, a hotly disputed loss to Louis and takes Marciano's 0.

I voted 'yes' and have nearly been convinced to change it but that resume - with the pretend Marciano win - is pretty good. It's as good as Marciano's and he is bona fide ATG.

 

80% of the US journeymen boxers in the 1980's looked good on film.

From 1946 onward he was 10-9, a .500 fighter.

 

It's like I said, how deep are you going to go to define ATGs? 10? 20? 25? 30? 35? 50? At some point Joe is there but not up with the most elite ATGs.