Walcott and Charles, a resume comparison

Let's say Walcott had defeated Joe Louis in his first fight but that his career played out the exact same way as it did in reality. He wins a bout against a very aged great champion in a very tight contest. Then he is Ko'd in the rematch. He then splits a series of fights with a p4p great fighting outside their best division then he gets stopped twice by Marciano, once in an epic back and forth fight and then in the first round.

I believe that makes him 3-5 with 3 ko losses.
Not the stuff of legends. Throw in his inconsistent early career with losses to like Abe Simon and even in his return not much separated him and Joey Maxim.

Walcott was, what he was a cute footwork guy that could really bang but didn't have a great boxing IQ, or champion mentality. Mediocre chin, but was also capable of beating many good contenders of the era. A good fighter but a bit of a mixed bag.

 

By taking the position that Walcott never improved upon his 35-40 journeyman run this is one of many logic pitfalls you are going to have to account for, good luck convincing others that 30s LHW contender Tiger Jack Fox was better than Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano.

 

several things popped up for me reading through this thread

Logic and common sense certainly argues against boxing or the heavyweight division regressing after the fall of the color line.

Film backs up that this didn't happen. I just don't see this being the case off surviving film of heavyweight fights from the thirties and the fifties.

Much is made of Walcott's spotty record in the 1930's with at least one poster averring he can't imagine Walcott improving. What I can't imagine is dismissing that there were almost no African-American contenders between Godfrey and Louis, and very few earlier in the post-Johnson era, given their impact on prior and subsequent history. To me it shows that lack of opportunity curtails performance, so if the opportunities open up performance will follow, and indeed did. A strongly trained and focused Walcott proved better than a Walcott with desultory or no serious training and tied down to a day job. Not surprising and not at all surprising that this proved more important than normal aging.

By the way, my guess is because he needed his day job, Walcott developed his safety first style which ended up contributing to his longevity. He couldn't afford to be hurt with a family to support.

Walcott improving when aging isn't unique. Archie Moore lost 7 fights between 1941 and 1945 when there were 15 million American men plus millions in other boxing countries in military service. He only lost 3 times and all to champions in the entire 1950's while holding the light-heavyweight championship. I just don't buy that competition during WWII was better. It flies in the face of common sense and logic and by the way contemporary opinion. Extrapolating that the fifties were somehow weak because of WWII is facile and unconvincing. Boxing generations turn over rather rapidly. And most importantly, the films don't back it up.

On the original question, Charles had the better record.

 

All of those other factors are FAR down the line when it comes to proving who likely won a fight. The first and most important bit of information to be able to make such an assumption on who won, are the writers opinions. All that other stuff means f all if the writers don't support the conclusion you're trying to draw. So the point none the less stands, if Greb won fights based on the majority of sports writers, than you should view the Walcott vs. Louis 1 fight in the same regard. Writers had Walcott winning wide as I pointed out in a early post, while nobody had Louis winning wide. Since the most important evidence in a fight we can't see is the view of the sportswriters and audience who did, then, why the double standard? Did the loud boos from the audience give you the impression Louis Should've won? Did the scores of writers who had Walcott winning by 10 rounds, 8 rounds, 7 rounds lead you to believe Louis should've won? No outrage over the results... huh? There seemed to be plenty of outrage after the fight, and people still talk about it being one of the worst decisions. They certainly talk about it more than Greb vs. Tunney 2, yet there was evidence people thought it was a bad verdict? Weird. Which again still takes a back seat to the most important bit of evidence... the view of the writers who saw the fight. Yet you and others just prefer to call is a straight loss and say it took 5 times to win, when really, that isn't the full story is it....

 

Spot on summation.

 

Yet, contemporary observers, those who actually watched Walcott and division unfold, thought this was pretty accurate. That Walcott was rewarded for hanging around till the division came back to him. And as noted above by Long Count, it's not like he even terrorized the division at that time.

 

I've addressed your "appeal to authority" already. Simply repeating this fallacy over and over wont sway me or invalidate my argument. Nor does it validate your own, show you can logically argue your case, I dont think you can.

If you are of the opinion that the entire division sunk below the level of Tiger Jack Fox in four years time, I would strongly disagree. Tiger Jack, Lazer, and Simon...etc are simply not better than the three HW Champions that Walcott gave hell too, nor are they better than the numerous contenders he bested.

I would say Walcott did terrorize division. He earned 6 title shots against 3 different Champions despite being black and not having a fan friendly style. That is remarkable.

 

Mike Tyson beat an ancient Holmes and Light Heavyweight Michael Spinks, lost to Buster Douglas, lost to Holyfield twice, lost to Lennox Lewis..
I believe that makes him 2-4 with with KO losses and a dq.
Not the stuff of legends.

What a pointless way to evaluate a fighter.

 

I apologize if I "appealed to authority" to support my position. Next time I will consult modern chat forums regarding events of 70 years ago.

Walcott went 25-10-1 from 1944 onward. Hardly terrorizing the division. Staying persistent in search of a brief window where he could shine? I would buy that argument, as it was bought at the time.

 

Hardly apples and oranges. Tyson became champion at 22 unified the title - didn’t have 8 losses on his ledger that basically get glossed over as “he was hungry and didn’t have proper management” and he beat ancient Holmes by KO he didn’t split two fights with him - and i’m Being generous to Walcott because he actually lost both to ancient Joe. Spinks wasn’t beaten several times as heavy and was still undefeated when Tyson took him out in 1 round.
I’m not hear to rip Jersey Joe, he was a good fighter, better than a journeyman but he was a mixed bag. He came up short in his second career against the best and was prone to be inconsistent and have a suspect chin.

 

Mike Tyson lost to Danny Williams at the same age as Walcott defended his crown against Rocky.

 

No two fighters age alike all have different career arcs. Tyson did more by 22 than Walcott ever achieved. It’s not the same.

 

Yes, and you have to look at their arcs, when they were at their best who they fought, how they fought etc.

Not just plucking out stats, and making judgements without even comparing those stats with other fighters.