The curious case of Jersey Joe Walcott and his prime.

Are you saying that Walcott was just more inconsistent back when he was younger or are you saying that even at his best back then he wasn't the same fighter that he was in his old age?

Who's to say that Abe Simon couldn't possibly have also caught the older Walcott with a fortunate punch? From what I've read, Walcott was putting on a clinic until he got starched by a single punch. Why couldn't something like that have happened in the late 40s/early 50s?

 

Yeah he clearly wasn't the same fighter. He had talent obviously but he was almost a fight by fight proposition earlier on. He strung some impressive runs together after his hiatus and clearly was a more consistent well rounded fighter as his performances against more impressive opposition indicates.
Who's to say Walcott couldn't have caught Simon with a picture perfect punch like he levelled Charles with. It's boxing, strange things happen. My guess is that an older,better trained, more well schooled Jersey Joe could last the full distance with and likely befuddle the crude Simon. He did better against better fighters than Simon past the age of 30 definitely.

 

Lets look at some of Walcott's earlier losses.

KO Palmer, he was disqualified for rabbit punches
Carl Mays, got the decision after a hard fight
Henry Taylor, Walcott dropped Taylor 3 times (The Philadelphia Inquirer) or 5 times (Evening Courier (Camden)) in the first round, but exhausted himself
Al Ettore, Walcott won the 1st and 6th rounds, and the 2ng and 7th were about even. Walcott had Ettore hurt at times, but Ettore wore down Walcott with body punches and KOed him with rights to the body in close.
Billy Ketchell, a controversial decision, the Morning Post and Evening Courier both gave it to Walcott. Walcott scored atleast 2 knockdowns

 

/

Good post JT I have no problem with it . My arguments are for those who say he was half starved and that's why he lost fights.Lets look at his fights and his weight for them
Last 2 fights of 1940
Simon 192lbs
Lewis 192lbs
4 Year Hiatus
1944
Del Paoli192lbs
Singleton189lbs
Saunders 186lbs
Allen 191lbs
Baksi188lbs
Allen195lbs
Denson192lbs
Dudas 193lbs
Murray189.5lbs
1945
Sheppard192.5lbs
1946
Allen 192lbs L
Bivins 196lbs
Blake 192lbs
Oma192.75lbs
Gomez191.75lbs
Maxim192lbs L
Ray191.5lbs L
1947
Maxim 191lbs
Ray 192.5lbs
Maxim 192.5lbs
Louis 194.5lbs

Not much weight fluctuation to indicate being half starved there.
NB It's perhaps worth mentioning that though Walcott avenged his losses to Maxim and Ray but they were close decisions,and he only just scraped by Bivins in 46.

 

One of the reasons I have so much respect for Joe, coming through those hard times to get to be heavyweight champ. A lot of guys would have said Fck it and thrown the towel in.

 

Anyone can always get sparked with a huge punch at any time and from anybody but that’s kind of besides the point of what we’re talking about.

 

OK, you're all correct. Walcott became a new fighter once he had consistency and the Depression lifted its heavy burden off his lone shoulders.

And then, post-1944, Walcott went 22-10. Behold the Greatness of this non-journeyman.

 

Maybe you should break down those ten losses for us? 2x Marciano 2x Louis (arguably won the first fight)2x Charles Maxim Elmer and Allen were all avenged and Layne. All top quality opponents

 

I don't find it hard to believe that he was better after his hiatus. But I would feel more comfortable speculating about how much better he got if we had video footage or at least more detailed descriptions of those early fights. I suspect that he wouldn't have looked all that different in the early part of his career (probably used fewer of those cutesy flourishes though.

From what I saw of his later career, it seems like he liked to slug it out at times when he didn't have to, and since he didn't have the sturdiest chin, a tough, crude puncher like Simon might always pose more risk for any version of Walcott than he should.

 

There are basically two possibilities here. Either:

A. The dialogue of the OP is broadly correct, and Walcott was better in the late 40s for the reasons given.
or-
B. The late 30s/early 40s was an era of titans, where even the second rate contenders could have been champions, if they had come along a decade later.

I see a lot less problems with explanation A.

 

Not at all.

I would say that Elmer Ray's career trajectory was very similar.

 

Unless its Bob Satterfield koing a 20 years old 2 day substitute Cleveland Williams?

 

As were their results against each other.

 

That gives you something to think about. If Tyson had the same road as Walcott, would there ever have been a Mike Tyson as we know him?