Jersey Joe Walcott in the 1970s

What about vs Jimmy Ellis? Ha Ha.

 

I think Walcott gets overrated. You take a guy who basically won a title because the division was at one of its weakest points in history and drop him into the strongest era in the divisions history and I think most people on here would be amazed at how poorly he does. The guy lost to Rex Layne in convincing fashion and took 5 tries to win the title, finally doing it against a guy who was at his best at LHW in an era where there were very few big heavyweights. Hed probably beat Chuvalo but saying hed beat everyone in the seventies but Ali and Frazier is pure comedy gold.

 

He'd be in some interesting fights, some good fights. Win some, lose some.

 

Now there I must disagree.

It is inescapable, that his early career took place under very unfavorable circumstances.

It is also inescapable, that he would have got much better backing in the 1970s.

Also if he was as bad as you say, then the argument carries over into the 70s.

His victims were still causing ripples!

 

Five tries for the title, but it could be said that technically he had already won the title twice.

 

Technically it couldnt.

 

He didn't get five title shots because people felt sorry for him.

He got five title shots because the results kept being controversial!

 

I agree. Louis "beat" JJ the first time, and so they had to rematch to give JJ another chance to win the title and give Joe to prove he was still champ. In Charles II, Walcott was just the best available challenger, but because of the closeness and controversy of the bout led to a third bout.

 

I personally don't think it was a terrible robbery for Charles to retain the title in their second fight, but JJ was totally robbed against the Brown Bomber the first time. I know some would resist a lot more on this topic than I would.

 

Thanks Richard, appreciate it.

 

He kept getting title shots because the division was so weak. Thats a fact. The only title shot he got due to controversy was the second Louis fight. He was knocked out in that fight. Nothing controversial about it. The first Charles fight was dull as dishwater and wasnt especially controversial, the second one was a clear win for Charles as well and Walcott didnt even deserve that title shot. The INS reported that fight signing thus: "Ezzard Charles, plumb out of challengers for his worlds heavyweight went sadly back to where he came in monday and agreed to defend the crown against Jersey Joe Walcott... ...(Walcott) apparently qualified for another title shot by losing to a little known westerner, Rex Layne, of Salt Lake City." Yet somehow Walcott managed to get yet another title shot. Like I said, the division was terrible at the time and it takes some serious rose colored glasses to pretend it was anything but or that Walcott wasnt an in and outer who would have been terribly overmatched in the 70s. On his best night he might give some of the lesser contenders problems but he could never be counted on to give his best night. All of this bull**** about not having a manager to take care of him being the reason for his spotty record is ridiculous. It was the great depression, that was the rule, not the exception. Its not like the playing field wasnt level.

 

Actually a lot of people thought that Walcott deserved the decision in the second Charles fight.

That is why there was a third.

Charles should have sat on the result of the first fight, but he didn't.

 

The fans booed the decision ringside because Walcott was a sentimental favorite, not because the fight was close or controversial. Show me all of these expert opinions saying Walcott could or should have won:

Paul Menton Baltimore Evening Sun: "Charles wins handily but still gets booed" "Ezzard last night won a decisive victory over old Jersey Joe Walcott in 15 rounds in Detroit. The decision was unanimous and I do not see how anyone watching the fight, whether ringside or on television, could have disagreed with the scoring of the three officials. Charles was well ahead at the finish."

Murray Rose writing for the Associated Press: "13 writers who sat on all four sides of the ring, all scored for Charles... " He had Charles winning on rounds 8-4-3 and on points 80-70.

John O'Donnell Davenport Democrat and Leader watching on TV "There was no celebration when officials announced Charles had retained his crown. The customers seemed a bit bored by it all. Rather there was praise for the 37 year old Walcott going the distance. Thats a feat for an old man. The fight proved again that the heavyweight division is woefully weak in talent. When a gent at age 37 years can make a serious bid for the worlds championship and stick around for the distance, the man holding the crown is no terror.

Al Abrams Pittsburgh Post "Some thought old Jersey Joe was the winner, but most of the razzberry chorus generated from the time honored fans privilege to root for the underdog... As I saw it he was a fighting champion and clearly outpointed Walcott. Judged by rounds this score sheet had it 9 rounds to five for Charles with one even."

Harry Keck Pittsburgh Sun Telegraph: "I didnt think the bout was even as close as the three officials made it and they had it fairly decisive... It was plainly Charles' fight... ...I gave Walcott the fourth and last rounds with the eleventh even and a few of the others close."

Jack Cuddy writing for the UP: "On a round by round basis the UP favored Charles 8-5-2

Tommy Devine writing for the Detroit Free Press: "Despite all the wailing, however, it was Charles fight and by the wide margin the officials awarded it."

W. J. McGoogan St. Louis Post Dispatch: "Charles Convinces Everybody Except The Fans" "To the writer it seemed Charles had won, 81 to 69, taking nine rounds, with four going to Walcott and two even."

Edward Prell Chicago Tribune: "Charles took a shellacking in the 15th and last round but had built up enough of an edge to win the unanimous decision..." "Of eight writers polled at ringside all eight said they had Charles the winner."

Charles Johnson Minneapolis Star "There was little doubt among the experts. In addition to the the officials, boxing experts unanimously agreed that it was Charles."

Joseph Nichols St Louis Globe Democrat: "Charles was the winner by a clear margin. This observer favored Charles by the same count as the referee (80 to 70)."

Carl Hughes Pittsburgh Press: "I gave Jersey Joe only five rounds."

Gene Ward New York Daily News: "Theres no doubt in this corner that Ezzard won it, nor in the minds of the officials who gave him the unanimous nod. This ringsiders by-rounds count was 8-4 with 3 even.

Jack Brickhouse announcing the fight for radio audiences said that Walcotts flurry in the 15th won the crowd over to his side but was hardly enough to sway the fight in his favor. Charles had simply piled up to many points to be overcome and the decision could not be rendered any other way.

Russ Hodges announcing the fight for TV said they would wait for the decision to see if by some miracle Walcott won.

In fact I couldnt find a single opinion that thought Walcott won or even that Charles won a close fight. Like I said, zero controversy about this fight. The division had burned itself out. Walcott would be WAY over his head in the 1970s, his standing as a sentimental favorite then and now notwithstanding.

 

I don’t like when people say the 50s were weak. Reality doesn’t follow. So many great challengers of that period. People just have a stick in their butt about the size of the great fighters. Wasn’t their fault they beat all the big men of the time. Heck look at the five best wins post for challengers now and I’d say several were 40/50s era fighters of that time that carried over even into the 60s. With many ripples. I’d argue the 50s top 20 heavyweights against any decade. So no Walcott didn’t win in a weak era he just had a nice crowd pleasing style (one of the reason he got so many shots). And Layne Walcott was a close fight and Layne shouldn’t be disrespected his top five wins are prob better then any contender in the last 20 years not named Povetkin. If you think there’s someone better name them.