I don't think that anybody here is arguing that it was an age of giants. However I am equally adamant, that it was not an era where Roy Lazer or Abe Simon would have been champion!
How was Abe Simon's life so much better than Walcotts during the depression? And that accounts for exactly one of the twenty one losses on Walcott's resume. Keep going... No, a contender merely managing to win SOME of his fights against other contenders at a less than 50% ratio is not a dominant contender. A dominant contender is one who wins all of his bouts or at least the vast vast majority of his bouts against fellow contenders and does so easily. That was never Walcott. In fact almost every single fight Walcott had against a contender post WW2 was either razor thin or a clear loss for him. That is not a dominant contender. Your wrong. There are eras that are absolutely weaker than others. Measurably so. And it just so happened that you are talking about an era in which the titles were frozen, most of the champions were sidelined due to the war, and as millions of young men went to fight or work in factories so did the young contenders that were beginning to emerge by 1941 as well as the young men who would have gone into the sport had the war not interrupted normal daily life around the world. What you had after the war was a booming postwar economy that allowed previously desperate young men who would have found few options outside of the ring a quick entrance into the expanding middle class which left them to forgo the sport and earn a good living in careers that didnt leave you broken financially and physically. The majority of fighters that re-entered the sport after the war were either old and going for one last gasp, lost the best years of their careers, or just starting out. It was the guys who stayed home and continued to fight that took over the sport because they were already established and had more experience than the majority of those either entering the sport or less rust than those returning. Thats not even disputable. Its amazing to me that someone would argue the contrary. Its largely the reason that these dopey hipsters today seize upon these fighters who were average at best that exhibited some longevity during this period as these lost and forgotten greats (a word that is far far over used in this sport). Ezzard Charles was shot by the Mid fifties which is exactly what I said.. Just go look at his record or better yet read the calls for him to retire. He was already a rapidly fading fighter when Marciano got him. Afterwards he wasnt even winning half of his fights. Harold Johnson was a light heavyweight and wasnt even anywhere near his prime when Walcott beat him. Thats how weak your argument is. You have to take a 23 year old light heavyweight Harold Johnson, years away from his prime and set him up as some great win for Walcott and proof that Walcott's victory of him establishes him as a dominant HW contender. LOL. And for the record, your example of Johnson beating Jones as him being being a contender in the 1960s... Well, the Johnson-Jones fight was for the LHW title. Jones only weighed 171 pounds in that fight. Again, do we really want to have a discussion about how relatively unimportant Walcott's win over Johnson was in 1950? I'll take that argument every day of the week. Your exact words were: "Walcott cast a LONG SHADOW on the divisions, with his VICTIMS knocking over contenders up to the 1960s!" Thats simply not true. The only victim he had who beat anyone near the 1960s was Johnson. Johnson beat one notable HW contender in or near the 1960s: Machen, which he won by a score 5-4-1. Thats not VICTIMS KNOCKING OVER CONTENDERS. The fact that Johnson lost early in his career to Walcott was largely forgotten before he had even won the title. It was little more than a trivia question. Thats not Walcott casting a long shadow. Walcott, while better than Braddock, found himself in a similar position. A nice guy who hit the lottery but he wasnt casting in long shadows in the division.
I understand that Abe Simon was signed by a promoter when he was a member of a school football team, and was trained by Freddie Brown. That is obviously a huge advantage over a guy like Walcott. How many contenders through history have fought most of the other fighters int eh top ten, much less beaten most of them? Even if Walcott had never held the tile, he would have a case for being one of the best contenders in history. I am not arguing the contrary, I have said that this era was weaker than the pre war era. What I cannot accept however, is that there wasn't some sort of elite talent in this era, which seems to be what is being argued. Marciano went life and death with Charles twice, and he was obviously the best heavyweight of the mid 50s. Walcott beat Charles twice. If Walcott was as bad as you say, then that is every heavyweight up to the mid 50s screwed! It's not just Walcott's win over Johnson, it is also Johnson's interplay with the other key fighters of the era. He couldn't establish his superiority over Walcott's best victims, but he was beating guys like Valdez and Henry, who were key players in the heavyweigth division. He did better against Eddie Machen than Sonny Liston did ffs! If Walcott was as bad as you say, then the rot might extend right up to the 60s! Even admitting that Walcott was better than Braddock knocks a hole in your argument! Braddock was able to beat contenders in the era that Walcott couldn't get past first base in!
Umm no, you're the one being disingenuous here if anything. When you make a statement of "It took Walcott 5 times to win the title" You're saying, he wasn't good enough to win it in his first 4 times... and also saying... he was lucky to even get 5 shots at it. Then when you mix in what you also said Walcott probably was unlucky not to win and a bit of unfairness there. How do those mesh together? If Walcott likely won fight no. 1, which seems rather obvious (which I'll get into later), then really, why make a statement of it took him 5 times to win? That doesn't seem a little disingenuous to you. You don't think vital context is missing when making such a statement? I asked, and you didn't answer... If somebody made statement likes... It took Whitaker 2 times to get the better of Ramirez or it took Lewis 2 times to get the better of Holyfield. Would you say there is context missing and there is a tone of disingenuousness there? This notion that it wasn't a completely clear cut decision, is again, and odd way to put it. Unless there is a KO or a complete shutout, it can never be COMPLETELY clear cut. But why is completely clear cut needed? 73% of those who submitted scores, scored the fight for Walcott. So really, it was less than 1/3 for Louis. Then when you factor in 14 additional votes who didn't score the fight, it was 12 to 2 in favor of Walcott. That makes it even worse. Just take a look at these scores below. These are all scores submitted where the margin was more than 1 round each. Note that, more cards had Walcott winning by 3 rounds than had him winning by 1 round. Which indicates a relatively clear winner. Also note, the majority who voted for Louis, were from the Eastcoast, and he was clearly the more popular fighter. People thought it was near impossible for anybody to beat Louis is MSG by decision. Scores by 2 rounds or more Walcott (23) 8-5-2 8-6-1 12-2-1 10-4-1 9-6 8-6-1 8-6-1 8-6-1 8-6-1 7-4-4 8-6-1 9-4-2 11-3-1 8-5-2 11-4 11-4 10-5 11-3-1 9-5-1 10-4-1 8-4-3 8-3-4 11-4 8-4-3 9-3-3 9-3-3 12-2-1 8-5-2 8-5-2 Louis (8) 8-6-1 (Chicago) 8-5-2 (NY) 9-6 (NJ) 8-5-2 (Boston) 9-6 (NY) 8-6-1 (NY) 9-6 (NY) 8-5-2 Winner by decisive margin (4 rounds or greater) Winner by 10 Rounds – Walcott (2) Louis (0) Winner by 9 Rounds – Walcott (0) Louis (0) Winner by 8 Rounds – Walcott (2) Louis (0) Winner by 7 Rounds – Walcott (3) Louis (0) Winner by 6 Rounds – Walcott (4) Louis (0) Winner by 5 Rounds – Walcott (3) Louis (0) Winner by 4 Rounds - Walcott (3) Louis (0) Total = Walcott 17, Louis 0 Then when you factor in the crowd. It was like Rocky 4 in there. When the fight starts, the crowd is clearly pro Louis. They cheer for him more on the entrance/intro and during the first half of the fight. Then as the fight goes on, the start to shift and appreciate the work Walcott is doing. By the end, what was a pro louis crowd, turns into them booing loudly at the result for Louis. This is what we call a debate decision all things considered? I wouldn't. The tally doesn't indicate it was a debate decision. Not one score submitted had Louis winning by 4 rounds or more. Not one. Walcott had 17. But hey, I guess the genuine context is there when you make a statement like... It took Walcott 5 times to win considering the above.
Do I have any sympathy with the other side here? Absolutely, I do not think that Walcott was quite in Schmeling's class for example! I look at the late 30s/early 40s, and I see a minefield of dangerous fighters. I look at the late 40s/early 50s, and the picture looks thin. Walcott is perhaps the ultimate proof of this. So how would his early conquerors have done in his prime? Lazer and Simon would have lost, whether to Walcott or somebody else, and they would never have faced Louis! The wild card would be Tiger Jack Fox, who might just turn things on their head!
