Jersey Joe Walcott & The BoxRec Warriors (Video)

I weep for the fighters who fought days and weeks apart.

 

Excellent video Rummy!
Thank you for contributing something positive and accurate to great fighters legacies.

 

He received a lot of chances at the crown for a reason.

Some of his losses were very controversial, and he maintained his position in the rankings.

 

Walcott is an unusual case by today's standards.

If he was fighting today, he would be snatched up by a major promoter early in his career.

He would not end up taking fights against guys like Abe Simon on short notice.

Even if he somehow slipped through the net, a journeyman today can make as much money as a dentist.

He would be able to mount his own assault upon the division.

Walcott is by no means unique for the era, in having had an unmanaged career, and a managed career.

Another obvious example would be Fritzie Zivic.

 

He was 0-4 for the title before he won it. He had a debatable loss with Louis. He received a deserved rematch and he was ko’d. He then went on to face Charles and was beaten twice. The first time rather clearly. Yet he still got another crack.
I’m not trying to hate on the guy but he received rematches in two of his closest contests- Louis and Marciano - (Louis being way past it by the way) and in both rematches he got ko’d. In the 11th and 1st respectively. He also needed 3 chances to beat Charles.
I’m not saying he wasn’t great but he does seem to get more excuses headed his way than most fighters. Fres Oquendo was probably ripped off more than Walcott and he couldn’t get a whiff at a title fight with the K brothers.

 

Who is to say that he would have been anywhere near the same fighter if, as you suggest, he had been snatched up by a major promoter early in his career. He was not the same fighter early then that he became later. His unique style and ability was developed gradually fight by fight. The craftiness he displays in 1947 when he was first filmed against Louis likely was not there in the 1930s. He was unique in that he had time to learn tricks that no one else had because he wasn't used up too early and was therefore able to retain his physical abilities long enough to learn his craft.

Not that it is directly on point to this discussion, but just for fun, here are a couple of photos of a sparring session between Walcott and Louis in May 1936, showing what likely would have happened if Jersey Joe had been brought along too fast early in his career. I own a wirephoto of the incident, but I don't know how to attach it. Hopefully this link to an online version may work:

https://imsvintagephotos.com/tt683a0001740atif888594

 

The whole problem here is, it's very likely that Walcott should've won the HW title on his FIRST try. The majority of ringside observers and the press had Walcott winning. The knocked Louis down twice, and wasn't even really hurt at any point in the fight by the reports. It would've been a crystal clear win had it been scored by modern standards with 10-8 rounds. So this notion that he needed multiple tries likely isn't true. He likely did enough the very first time he had a shot. Just because you aren't awarded a victory you likely deserved, doesn't mean after you're not awarded it, it's logical to say.... yeah, you see, he needed multiple attempts to win a world title. That seems rather silly. I'd be like people saying it took Whitaker multiple tries to win a title because he was robbed against Ramirez the first time out. You can say it, because it's technically true, but functionally it's pretty silly to say imo.

 

Odd considering Walcott was dropped from his camp because he was showing up Louis and getting the better of the action.

 

The deciscion was debatable by most accounts and not necessarily an out and out robbery. By most accounts Jersey Joe looked better in the rematch until Louis knocked him out.
Again not hating on Walcott, my point his he got his rematch with an old Joe Louis and got ko’d. Then he got his rematch with Marciano and got ko’d in 1 round. He also lost cleanly to Charles.
The man had talent and he had style but he didn’t have a great chin and often in his biggest fights he came up just short.
For the record I think Jersey Joe was very good fighter and hall of fame worthy, not first ballot but worthy. He is not a top 20 heavy for me though. Just outside

 

I didn't say robbery, but the majority of people thought he had won the fight. Louis certainly didn't look like he thought he won the fight, and neither did the crowd, along with the press. The point is, your being mainly critical of him for coming up short in his biggest fights and taking multiple tries to win a world title. What I'm saying is, your main knock against him isn't exactly true when looking at the bigger picture. Had he been awarded the victory he likely deserved, on his first try out, how does that factor into your critique? Do you believe it took Whitaker multiple tries to win a world title and that should be a legit criticism of him? To say nothing of Walcott already way up their in age and being well ahead on all scorecards against an ATG HW in his prime in Marciano. That is no easy task, and says a lot about his quality imo.

 

Interesting. I just read an old article where Walcott claimed that he dropped Louis in the first round that they ever sparred and was then immediately sent home with $25.

 

Well, they must have sparred long enough for Louis to get back at him. If that is Walcott's version of events, I question it, and we have the photos with the wirephoto explanation of Louis sparring-session knockdown on the back of the photos as evidence to the contrary. The photos were taken in May 1936 when Louis was in training for the first Schmeling fight. Has anybody come up with a contemporary account of Walcott knocking Louis down? You can bet if Walcott really did knock Louis down while sparring at any time, it would have been reported by the press. Not saying it didn't happen, but "show me" a newspaper account.

I don't think Walcott was near the level that Louis was in the 1930s. Jersey Joe still was learning the tricks of the trade in fights the hard way with the likes of Al Ettore, Tiger Jack Fox, Wille Reddish, Elmer Ray, Curtis Sheppard, Roy Lazer, etc., some of which he won and some of which he lost. Obviously, given the caliber of fighters he was competing against, he was very good, but just not yet in the Louis class.

As a point of interest, I am in possession of a letter Walcott wrote to a fan in 1975 which reads in part:

"Sensing your interest in this sport I will try, at this point, to give you a short synopsis of some of my background in the ring. In 1933

This content is protected

​

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Yeah, the article I saw is from well after the fact, in the lead-up to the Louis rematch. Sounds like Walcott was either a liar or cursed with an extremely lousy memory.

From Charles Einstein, "Walcott Knows How to Fight the Brown Bomber," The (Muncie, Ind.) Times, July 25, 1951

"But Jersey Joe remembers best the time Louis was training for his first bout with Schmeling. Jersey Joe, then picking up whatever small change he could find to feed and clothe his family, won a job as sparring partner with Louis at Lakewood, N.J. The job lasted only one day.
"I knocked him down with a right hand punch the first round I went against him," Walcott recalls. They paid me $25 and hustled me out of there for good."

 

Whitaker has nothing to do with this. And yes Whitaker was robbed.
Jersey Joe was 0-4 against Louis and Marciano. And was stopped cold 3 times. He had one debatable loss the first one to Louis. Where at a 2-1 clip press thought he had won.
He was given the rightful opportunity to right what may have been a bad deciscion and he was stopped clean.
Had he received the deciscion he likely rematches Louis anyway and loses without making any defenses. I don’t think it impacts his legacy much either way from what it already is, a very good fighter with a very unique career.

 

The reason Whitaker is relevant is, according to your critique, I could technically say Whitaker took multiple tries to win his first title. I could, but that wouldn't be telling the full story would it? That is why I used him to illustrate the flaw in your critique of him. He likely didn't take multiple tries to win a word title, he just wasn't awarded the verdict. There's a difference. Well, we don't know what difference it would've made, but we do know that what you've listed as your biggest critique of him would no longer be valid. I get what you're saying to some degree, I just think the bigger picture is kind of being missed a bit.