Jersey Joe Walcott & The BoxRec Warriors (Video)

Interesting footnote: Back in 1936 aged 22 Walcott was hired as a sparring partner by the Joe Louis camp in the run up to the first Schmeling fight. A story was leaked in the press at the time about Louis being floored by a sparring partner but it was a bit hushed up - it was Walcott - Billy McGraw for The Philadelphia Record quoted Jersey Joe as saying "In two days I floored him three times, with 16 ounce gloves! With light gloves I'd tear his head off. He's too easy to hit." He was let go with the excuse that he 'Wasn't Louis' kind of fighter'

 

To be honest with you, I think that if he was snatched up early by a promoter today, his whole boxing style would be completely different.

If you gave a modern trainer, a young fighter with those attributes, they would try to make him much more offensively orientated.

You would end up with some sort of boxer puncher type, who would have considerable success, but might eventually come up against somebody that he couldn't trade with!

 

It might be useful to look at why he got those fights:

1. Louis fought him because he was the #1 contender.
2. Louis rematches him, because the majority of ringside reporters, thought that Wacott won the first fight.
3. Louis retires, so the top two contenders must fight for the vacant title.
4. Charles didn't really need to give Walcott a rematch, but there was a dearth of strong contenders, so it ended in a controversial decision.
5. Charles had to rematch Walcott, because many ringsiders thought that Walcott won the previous fight.

If you can go back in time and give Charles any advice, tell him to sit on the result of their first fight!

 

He knocked Louis down three times now? Is there any contemporaneous evidence of such a story being leaked?

 

Based on the actual photos of the sparring session and Walcott's statement to Charles Einstein in 1951 (quoted by mrkoolkevin above) indicating that his sparmate job with Louis only lasted one day, it's 100% clear Jersey Joe was not relating the event as it really happened. You can bet if he knocked Louis down that day, a photo of Louis on the canvas rather than Walcott would have been the one circulated by the wire service. I'd be interested to know when Bill McGraw's story appeared in the Philadelphia Record? Was it around the time of one of his fights with Louis? I don't really fault Jersey Joe for trying to build up his ego, but it sure makes it difficult for us historian types!

 

I came across a few newspaper stories that suggested that Walcott was a regular sparring partner for at least a couple weeks in May. A couple commented that Walcott was a good sparring partner, another referenced Louis dropping him with a hook. A few others focused on the tidbit that Walcott could sprint faster backwards than most people can sprint forward.

 

Interesting. Keep 'em coming!

 

Walcott certainly earned his shots more than Eric Molina or Charles Martin.

 

We could bring up any fighter that lost a bad deciscion then, that’s not my point. My point is that Walcott fought and lost multiple times for the title. Had Whitaker rematched Ramirez and was knocked out in the rematch it would be a better comparison.

 

Yeah as I have said Walcott was a very good fighter but he wasn’t great.
He had a debatable win against Louis (a very old and tired Louis)
He got ko’d by the very old Louis in the rematch.
He fights Charles and loses. Pretty clearly.
He loses to Rex Layne - yet gets another crack at Charles loses again in a very close debatable contest.
He beats Charles.
Beats Charles again
Gets ko’d late in great fight with Marciano
Gets ko’d in 1 in rematch with Marciano.

There is no doubt he was dangerous and quite good. I don’t know what you’re looking for in my response.
He was far better than his record of 18 losses indicates however he does tend to get overrated too

 

Has the pendulum swung too far the other way now?

The answer is perhaps.

The idea has crystallized that Walcott was better than guys like Max Schmeling, and I really think that this ought to be challenged.

Be that as it may, we should not go too far in dismissing Walcott's early career circumstances, as a mitigating factor.

You have a situation who standout contenders of the post war 1940s (Walcott and Ray), were both men who had languished in their prime years, probably owing to lack of management.

If you did not make a significant alowance for these fighters career circumstances, then the only possible conclusion, would be that the late 30s/early 40s, was one of the stronger eras!

 

True. The Louis Schmeling, Sharkey, Primo, Baer and Braddock fought was a hell of a lot better than the one Charles or Walcott fought.

 

I would certainly challenge the Notion that Walcott was better than Schmeling.
Schmeling knocked out an infinitely better version of Louis in a clear cut dominant win. Walcott fought an old Louis ripe for the picking and didn’t do enough to get the nod. Then got iced In the rematch.
So that match up aside - where Schmeling clearly has a common opponent edge against the outstanding Louis- the rest of their career probably gives slight edge to Walcott due to facing better competition, or perceived better competition.
However Walcott lost more often than Schmeling, more often by Ko, and against top competition his wins were far closer.
Schmeling defeated a lot of prime competition which he often doesn’t get enough credit for as his entire career gets overshadowed by the two Louis fights.
He ko’d Walter Neusel when he was hot and on the rise.
He ko’d Young Stribling in his only “successful” title defense at his peak.
He avenged his loss to Hamas when he was the number one rated contender by Ko.
He split his fights with Sharkey - he won by foul in a fight he was behind but competitive in when Sharkey went low, in the rematch that he “lost” most observers and by most it was something like 24-4 in ringside reports he had done enough for the win. Either way he went 1-1 with Sharkey.
Walcott often went back and forth and traded wins with the best competition he fought. He lost to and defeated among others Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray, Ezzard Charles, he did post good wins over Harold Johnson and Jimmy Bivins by SD.
They are an interesting comparison. I give an edge to Max. The Louis won cant be understated.

 

I'm curious, do you rate Schmeling resume higher or Walcott's as a whole?

 

So if I was to say:

Harold Johnson
Bivins
Elmer Ray
Maxim x 2
Charles x 2

You'd say:



I'd also include Louis 1, as I believe it's likely Walcott won that fight, and should get the credit that comes with beating that version of Louis. However, let's leave that alone for now, and just focus on the above equivalent for Max.