Walcott: the most skilled HW ever?

Never believed that myth...Charles might have held back for a time but plenty of footage of him just brutalizing fighters after Baroudi. Does the Layne knockout look like a man holding back....my god.

 

He was very skilled indeed. He could sometimes get too comfortable though. Sometimes he'd get caught switching from orthodox to southpaw or southpaw back to orthodox. Sometimes he'd get caught not protecting himself after throwing a punch or combo. Sometimes he carried his hands low. He had enough quickness, power, and durability to get away with these things more times than not though. All in all he was a great P4P fighter and a great fighter to learn from.

I think Charles was the better fighter overall despite going 2-2 vs. Walcott. Charles beat Walcott by decision the first two times they met. Charles dropped Walcott in their second fight. Many felt Charles deserved the decision in their fourth and final meeting but Walcott got the nod on the cards.

In their third fight Walcott stopped Charles in the 7th round with a great shot.

Walcott gave a past prime Louis all Louis could handle and even a little more than that. He dropped Louis twice in 1947 but lost a very unpopular split-decision. Even Louis was surprised at the decision. They fought again in 1948 and Walcott gave Louis a tough fight again. He dropped Louis once but was stopped in the 11th round.

Walcott gave Marciano hell in their first fight. He dropped Rocky in the frist round and outboxed him for much of the fight. In round 13 Walcott was dropped with a great punch that put him down for the count. Walcott was stopped in the 1st round of their rematch at the age of 39 1/2.

Walcott also beat Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray, and Jimmy Bivins among others.

 

From 45-47, Walcott devoured the Ring top 10 while fighting on an almost monthy basis. Its probably one of the best runs in the history of the division. I think overall he is probably 8-7 against top 5 fighters which is pretty amazing for fighting the very best so often and frequently at the end of his career.

For reference, modern Heavyweight ATG late bloomer Lewis was just 6-0-1 against top 5. At the heavyweight limit, Ancient Archie Moore is like 6-3 against top 5. Walcott couldn't beat Louis or Maricano for the title, but he's definetly an upper tier heavyweight in terms of achievement. The only thing that really holds him back is a lack of footage.

 

I think Walcott would beat Moore, but that would be a styles things.

Patterson against Walcott I'm unsure of. But Patterson's speed advantages nullifies some of the clever-trickery, assuming it's harder to pull them off with a faster and greatly skilled fighter in front of him.

 

As a Marciaon fan, I agree with this. In fact, I made a thread about how he might've been a poor finisher. He had Charles badly hurt in Round 6, Round 10, and even in the 15th. Couldn't finish... although Marciano called that his worst fight in his defense.

If he lands right though, you're detonated. Rocky did a good job maneuvering and feinting Walcott to the ropes. So that specific incident should be held in high regard, even if Marciano isn't the best finisher. I think a lot of the times he just got over-anxious trying to finish guys. He was certainly a little wild and inaccurate at times when he so wanted to finish a fighter.

 

It's not crazy, I've just never heard someone take position before. Charles has the tools, but he's going to have to deal with an unbelievable awesome and long-jab. And like Holmes, Charles likes to fight in spurts and dictate on his own behalf. It will be tough for him to unsettle and bother Holmes, and force his fight.

It's possible, though. Charles was truly something special.

 

Layne was good, I dont deny that. But I contend that anyone worthy of being rated among the top 3 or top 5 most skilled heavyweights ever would not drop a 10 round fight to him. Layne was good but not that good.

It's interesting that you are quick to count Walcott's loss to Louis as a win, and you do something similar with his loss to Maxim, but when it comes to the Layne and Charles comment above there's no mention of the controversy over referee Dempsey giving it to Layne, you just say layne "showed he was capable of beating Ezzard Charles" ...

Firstly, Lennox isn't as good as some people claim.
Lecondly, it only takes one punch to lose the way Lennox loss, at that could mean making as little as one technical error.
To lose a fight on points to a "lesser" fights means Walcott took several punches he shouldn't have taken, or landed far fewer than he should have. That means many technical errors.

Again, it's the fact that Walcott, allegedly among the top 2 or 3 highest skilled HWs ever, lost A DECISION against a man you describe as "not a boxer". It's no shame, but it shows Walcott wasn't that far above the field in his prime as to suggest he was top 3 most skilled of all-time.

I guess they are about 80, perhaps 100 heavyweights we could say are "arguably" top 25 of all-time.

I never implied that Layne wasn't a good formidable contender. But in terms of all-round skills he wasn't A-class or any sort of stand-out, and he was actually considered inexperienced and not the finished article when he beat Walcott.
He beat Walcott by fair decision.

If Walcott was so skilled he wouldn't drop decisions to unseasoned "rugged brawlers" !

It's illogical to say someone is the most skilled boxer (or close to it) but he can get outpointed by B-list rugged brawlers who lack experience, while in his prime years.
It just contradicts the whole definition of boxing skill.

 

Good post. Solid points. :good

 

I'm not so sure but he was a hell of a combo of speed and power ...

 

Most skilled is somewhat subjective.

If you said best technician then you would have a strong case.

 

I think he ranks up there in the top 5.

 

To be fair, you kinda make your own luck - if he had trained daily as Marciano did, he'd have won those fights easily and been a top contender in his 20s, and could well have beat Louis (as he arguably did after the war in the first fight).

Walcott had that extra little flash that you often need to beat the best. Charles had his number until that brilliant feint and one-punch KO in the 3rd fight. The way he set up Joe Louis in the first fight especially was great to watch and study. His main weakness was his chin, which he didn't exactly protect, relying on his speed to avoid getting hit - this was his undoing later on when his reflexes faded. Both Louis and Marciano caught him late when he was outboxing them.

 

What exactly makes Walcott such a great, let alone the best technician? I know Futch said so, but what is there to point to? He was skillful, crafty, but unorthodox. I don't see how he's more technical than say Ezzard Charles. Maybe I'm wrong, but can someone point out to be what I'm missing.

 

Disagree. Walcott had a good chin. He fought more punchers than any heavyweight champion in history outside of Ali and Lewis. From 1945-1953 only Louis and Marciano were able to put him away. Walcott fought and beat some of the decades greatest punchers including Tommy Gomez, Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Q Murray, Elmer Ray, Lorenzo Pack, Hein Ten Hoff, Joe Louis(1st fight)....he took some hellacious shots off of these men. On film, Walcott took some monsterous shots off Marciano and Louis without going down. It took both many rounds to dispose of Walcott.