Jersey Joe Walcott in the 1970s

Layne-Walcott wasnt a close fight at all. It was a clear win for Layne. And Walcotts style wasnt why he was popular, it was his story. He was another Cinderella man. Walcott wasnt aggressive and didnt throw a lot of punches. He was often criticised for running too much. Monday morning quarterbacks who have only seen his first fight with Marciano or his KO over Charles have a rosey view of him. Go watch him lay on the ropes absorbing punishment in the complete Layne fight, running from an aging Louis who had little more than a jab, or getting outboxed in boring decisions against Charles and tell me he was exciting. Marciano is the one who made him exciting in their fight. Saying that people who criticise the 50s have a stick up their ass would extend to most of the experts in that era as well because most of them were very vocal that the Walcott/Charles era was weak and uninteresting. The amount of fantasy on here surrounding Walcott is pretty stunning from saying his second fight with Charles was controversial to saying he had this crowd pleasing style and was so good he would have only lost to Frazier and Ali in the 70s. Hilarious. Like I said, he was an also-ran in his own era which was pretty well universally decried as weak at the time and we are supposed to believe he magically becomes this great fighter in the deepest era the division ever saw? No.

 

I would say it depends when Walcott fights them. Frazier and Ali were there to be taken in the mid to late 1970's.

 

I would not say a decade with Maricano, Liston, Charles, Patterson and Walcott was weak. I would not call it the 70s or 90's either. Nor the 60's. You could say the top ten didn't always have good depth in the 1950's. You could also say the decent journeyman in the 1950's were better than most most decades. Fans got their monies worth.

If you want to list the top 20's in the 1950's, I'll read it.

 

I made a thread about it awhile back and bumped it

 

Assuming he was properly managed and trained unlike for most of his actual career, I think he would have been a solid top contender.

 

How exactly was Walcott improperly managed and poorly trained for most of his career? If a guy gets opportunities but cant maintain a consistent winning streak dont blame his manager or his training.

 

In that span, in addition to a number of his bigger fights (Louis, Charles, Marciano, Elmer Ray), Joe Walcott lost to Rex Layne, Joey Maxim and a pug named Johnny Allen who was 11-15-1.

I don’t see him as a major force over the 1970s but he’d sneak out a few upsets on cuteness.

On balance, however, it’s clear that he had a very odd trajectory where he kind of hit his peak for a very short time at the end of his career against some aging fighters, while on balance he accomplished far less during the bulk of his career.

 

Walcott could punch and his retreat and pop style was effective for guys that chased after him. He dropped Louis several times and Marciano coming in. So I could see him laying some traps and getting a few over aggressive types hurt chasing. However guys that boxed or stayed behind the Jab would beat him in the 70s. Ali, Norton, Young, then most of the sluggers were bigger and better like Foreman and Lyle, Quarry would win in a snoozer. I could see him picking off a Shavers, Bonavena maybe even an ancient Sonny Liston. But he would never win title and would likely get one shot at it.

 

Analyzing the FOTC shortly after it happened, Joe Louis said that Jersey Joe Walcott would have beaten both Ali and Frazier. Louis had a reputation for picking the wrong winner in big fights. I think he was wrong about this as well. I would pick both Ali and Frazier over JJ. Walcott himself picked Ali as the top heavy of all as early as the mid 1960s. But I believe he would give Ali a good competitive fight.

Frazier's style is bad for Jersey Joe. I see Smokin' Joe applying more pressure and punching faster than Marciano and grinding him down. Too much pressure and work rate.

Toss-up for Norton. I could see this going either way, although I lean slightly toward Norton. I see Walcott piling up an early lead and the fight coming down to the stretch.

Although I wouldn't bet any money either way, I would give him a good chance against Foreman. If, and it's a big 'if', he could survive the early rounds he could take George into deep water and gas him. He would have to box George and not get into any shootout with him in those early rounds.

I believe he would be victorious over everyone else. I think he would frustrate Jerry Quarry. He outpoints Ellis and Bugner in rather dull fights. He wins a hard-fought fight with Bonavena and cruises to a comfortable decision over Chuvalo. Ron Lyle would give him a good fight with both fighters possibly hitting the deck. I would pick JJ to decision Lyle, as Quarry did. Earnie Shavers could provide fireworks, but I would pick Walcott, and I would pick him over a pre-1978 Larry Holmes. Although his last fight was in 1972, Floyd Patterson may put up a decent fight. The Patterson who won over Bonavena could give JJ a handful, but I believe a 1952 vintage Walcott would win over a 1972 Patterson.

As an earlier poster mentioned, at some point around 1976-77 he just might be able to take the title. At any rate, he would have been at least a solid top contender during the '70s.

 

Good question.... here’s my answer... Walcott had very limited amateur experience. He worked and held a job for most of his early professional career. He had little time to train, wasn’t always working with quality people, took fights on short notice, And wasn’t always completely healed between fights.... He eventually Got his career in order. But by that time he was an older fighter by the day’s standards yet STILL became the oldest man to win the heavyweight title - a record which stood until George Foreman broke it nearly half a century later.... Little different than George Foreman, Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali who all fought through the olympics and began their pro careers with quality trainers, managers and in some cases carefully selected prospect fight schedules.

 

I don't like the idea that one era is weak or good. What makes one era objectively better than the other? Many people consider 1990s very strong, but we had some of the weakest champions in that era.

I agree that 1970s was very entertaining era, but sometimes I think it's overrated because a lot of boxing fans grow up in this decade.