What fighters do we hold a revisionist perception of?

I don't see Walcott as a journeyman, not even remotely. He was rated a top 10 Heavyweight from 1945 until 1953 and was ranked only behind Louis and Marciano (#2) for at least three of those years. He ran an aged Joe Louis (knocked him down multiple times over two fights) tight, one punched Ezzard Charles, backed it up with a decision win defending the title and gave a prime Rocky Marciano a great fight. Charles hadn't been beaten in 4 years and that was a disputed decision. He'd only been beaten via that one disputed decision over an 8 year period.

The majority of the quotes also pre-date Walcott one punching charles and winning the world title which is awfully embarrassing for the so called experts/writers.

You can clearly see his skill and sharpshooting on film. Many thousands of boxers would have killed to be such a journeyman, world heavyweight champion and all that.

 

I remember a thread a couple months back asking how Holmes would do in today's era, and the nearly universal response was he would outbox everybody around effortlessly. Never mind that he rarely did that against his actual mediocre opposition.

He wasn't like Ali where he could effortlessly outbox and run circles around his opponents. He had to go in the trenches with them, and where them down.

 

Cleveland Williams. You get the sense some on the internet think Cleveland Willliams would have ran through Foreman, Ali and Frazier. They have the sense to not say it but they don't need to.

Greb because apparently hes the consensus P4P GOAT now.


I agree with seamus's interpretation of Walcott but I think the revisionism would have happened relatively soon after he was champ. After all you can't tell the legend of Rocky Marciano if Walcott is a mediocre journeyman(I do think being barely top 10 fulfills this definition from a media standpoint). Opposed to the modern generation overrating him. I think to modern observers he's just one of many names in the pantheon of heavyweight greats and there hasn't been an effort to rehabilitate his legacy.

""Though he's an effective journeyman artilleryist"

I want to go back to calling boxers artilleryists.

 

Of course they fought more often back in the day - it seems Les had his first fight when only 14 yo - his record ultimately boasted 50 fights, with wins over several top MWs of the day.

I thought he was highly regarded in his day, and testimonials from several of his top opposition supports that belief.

I don’t think he has been availed so much of favourable and unjust revisionism.

Sure, it’s normal to extrapolate what might’ve been if not for the unfortunate circumstances when he traveled to the US - but Les’ resume was already very rock solid, a progressive resume that held even greater promise for the future.

And, imo, Les looks very good on the available films and better than Ketchel.

 

Agreed.
Watching Walcott fight one can plainly see his skill level.
What writers of the era may have thought, could be seen as hearsay, because unlike today's era, when one can see a fighters ability simply by picking up their cell phone.
During those times alot of "word of mouth" comments could be taken as a truth, and passed on. Especially if the fighter was seen as " boring ".
Factor in the activity of Walcott which would've been much higher than ANY boxers the last 50 yrs or so, leading to more times for him to have an off night .
Joe Walcott at his best would be a tough night for most heavyweights in history.
Not bad for a fighter seen as a Journeyman by newspaper writers of his era.

 

Khaosai Galaxy I've seen people rate him in top 50 boxers of all time.

When in reality he never unified, fought against mostly poor opposition, and I've heard there was some shady stuff that went on in Thailand aswell in some of his fights.

Very overrated IMO.

 

Yeah, both his success and the skill visible on film are not those of a journeyman. Interesting, though, that that tag kept following him. It could be that his late 30's early 40's career didn't wash away until he became champion.

 

Absolutely,

I had/have those Ring Mags and still have most of the Boxing News from that period...

yeah it was madness and also Fighter/Regional/Ownership Centrist. JJW is a not too far off candidate for ONE of the VERY TOP Greatest Fighters in History, never mind just in Heavyweight circles.

 

Absolutely Flash, absolutely.

I did a deeper dive ages back into Walcott's background as i was puzzled by his late bloom. I found some interesting stuff. Of course there was still some denial.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-curious-case-of-jersey-joe-walcott-and-his-prime.643117/

 

He was champion when there was only one. I doubt Louis, Charles or Marciano would agree with your assessment.

 

It's not my assessment. It was the assessment of those covering the sport at the time. There was a talent vacuum after the war. As nature abhors a vacuum, this was filled guys from the previous era who eeked out a few more years to take advantage of the vacant landscape, and a few lightheavies who rose up to do the same. Sprinkled among these were the types of talents who wouldn't have achieved notoriety in other, richer eras.

 

Bivins was handling those prewar guys quite well.
Walcott schooled him nicely.

 

I’ve seen lists with Khaosai Galaxy in the top 50 which is odd as usually the fighters who were better than him in his own era and weight class or vicinity are missing.

 

I reckon that's the case.