Walcott and Charles, a resume comparison

NICE WORK Janitor!!

 

Walcott lost 8 times to some relatively poor fighters early in his career. When he returned he did better but he’s still
2-6 against Old Louis, Charles and Marciano. With 18 total career losses.
And i’m Still saying he was a good fighter, with good footwork and could punch. I’m saying he his chin was mediocre (it was), and that his mentality was not that of a championship level fighter (my opinion). He was good not great.
I think that is a fair assessment if you disagree that’s fine.

 

Old Louis knocked him out for a 10 count. Marciano put him out badly for a 10 count and then most damaging did it a second time in the first round.
I understand those guys were great punchers but Walcott still folded in 3 of 4 fights with them. Simon and Fox also both ko’d him. I wouldn’t say his chin was “good”

 

What does good but not great mean? Do you consider him top 20 all time?

 

He doesn’t quite make my top 20. I have him somewhere between 21-30. I’m Not calling him a journeyman on here as some are he was a good heavyweight that tends to get a little overrated imo.

 

Or you can think for yourself, and not let biased writers nostalgic for the white dominated heavyweight division they grew up with do the thinking for you.

He is actually 25-10 which is damn impressive given the competition he faced.

Walcott shows up in the RING annual ratings from 1945 to 1952. That is an 8 year window. He is no less than top 5 in 6 of those years. Hardly a brief window where he could shine. As I already stated he fought in 8 World Title fights from 47 to 53. That is pretty damn terrorizing.

Of those 25 wins. 13 appear in the RING annual ratings either for the year he fought them or the year after he fought them. (Baksi, Murray, Sheppard, Bivins, Oma, Gomez, Maxim x2, Rayx2, Agramonte, Charlesx2) You can argue he cleaned out the division.

Of his 10 losses. 7 were to Hall of Fame fighters in Charles, Louis, Maxim and Marciano. He avenged the Charles and Maxim defeats and arguably deserved the nod in one of these losses. Of the remaining 3 losses, he avenged 2.

 

That's a reasonable rating and pretty impressive given how many excellent fighters have competed in the division in the last 100 years.

 

Sounds about right.

 

In which of Walcott's defeats do you think he was underweight?

 

People still discussing this journeyman?

 

lol!

 

How many of them actually caught him cleanly with big punches and tested his chin?

 

Charles probably had the better resume of of the two, but seeing both of them in action and at their best, Walcott definitely looked like the better fighter.