Is Jersey Joe Walcott the most skilled operator of all time?

If not, who was better than he?

 

He was very skilled, but in many aspects he was a greatly experienced natural who relied on his boxing brain, instincts, radar, reflexes etc. In that sense he was certainly one of the most skilled HWs. But I wouldn't have him among the most technically skilled.

 

Skills in the sense that he not only had the right balance, and could even get low enough to stifle Marciano, and was leading on the cards vs both him and Louis before getting knocked out.

Skilled in the sense, that he went beyond the perfection of boxing fundamentals, and into the ability to set opponents up using ring savy and intellect.

Who can you think of more skilled than he, especially in the second aspect?

 

Even in his losses, he appeared to be robbed in a Bernard Hopkinsesque type of way.

 

He's top-20 pound-4-pound at any weight... As a heavy, he cracks the top-5 with ease... This all based on skill, savvy and technique.... BUT! I can easily name 5 heavies from past to present that would KTFO of Joe Walcott in a time machine...

MR.BILL

 

I like your definition. That one works for me.

 

I haven't seen much of Zivic, and while I'm impressed with Moore's fundamentals, I think Walcott brings more to the table in the sense that he has more moves to set his opponents up and play into his hands.

I know Moore was old, but he looked helpless against both Ali and Patterson.

Granted, that was an athletically prime Ali and Patterson, and Moore was definitely in decline, especially against Ali...

But...

I think an old Walcott would beat Patterson, and lose a close decision to Ali.

 

Well, he split 4 four fights even with Charles.:huh

 

Charles is damn good himself.

 

I always think there are roughly two definitions or types of "skill" in regards to boxing.

Firstly, general skill, ie. "Ring generalship", cleverness etc. The ability to think your way to winning, making the right moves, anticipating the right moves. Swinging the advantages towards yourself, "tricking" your opponent, controlling the action. Just straight-up boxing SKILL.

Secondly, specific "skills", ie. applied techniques.

Either way, I'm not sure Walcott was as foremost among the skillful as some people here have claimed. We've had this conversation before. I think Walcott showed some very sublime and beautiful or "flashy" skills and techniques at times, he had some cool moves. But I doubt that qualifies as any more skillful than many others.
He was outpointed by Ezzard Charles, a man who was smaller, weaker and less powerful than him. He was outpointed by Rex Layne, a raw novice who was strong but no stronger than Walcott, and who had far less refined technique. KO'd by an over-the-hill Louis who he really had the beating of. Somewhere along the line, Walcott was making a lot of mistakes, considering his allegedly pre-eminent skill.

That's just my take though.

 

Charles wasn't as much a natural as Walcott, but he was more technically skilled. That made for an interesting match-up. Two masters, but in different ways.

 

Rex Layne didn't outpoint him, he outworked him, and Jersey looked to have gotten robbed.

 

He was no Hilario Zapata.