Where do you rank Jersey Joe Walcott ?

Wlacott quit in the 2nd fight vs Marciano by taking the count in round one, the jumping up at " 11 "

I don't see much differnce between Patterson and Charles. PAtterson was faster and hit harder. Charels was a little tougher. Both were small fighters who liked to trade, and would be meat vs Sonny Liston.

Do you really mean that or are you pulling or legs? Walcott beats Tyson down? I think Tyson wrecks Walcott, and Lewis has an easy night with him as well.

 

Wait, their worst period?

Then Walcott has... what... almost 20 losses, including more knockdowns and knockouts than Lennox?

 

Agreed. Sometimes the double standards on this board amaze me. Some Walcott fans say Lewis has a glass jaw, but you'll never hear them say Walcott chin was at least 3 times more suspect...and that is the fact.

 

And of course someones going to cite the shots Walcott took from Marciano in his best chin showing ever.

And then someones going to bring up Lennox taking 270 pound Shannon Briggs best shots and not even going down, and it'll be quickly dismissed with cries of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMAN.

I respect Walcott, but the man was variable, period.

 

True, I've debated hammer and tong with people who steadfastly justify Walcott's 18 losses as being either past or before prime, but claim that the ONLY TWO defeats Lewis ever had were both prime, hence damaging his legacy . I don't understand this mentality myself. Lewis clearly improved after 1993 through the help of Emanual Steward, following the McCall loss. By 2001, Lewis was 35 years old in his defeat to Rahman, so technically he wasn't at his peak for either of those losses. He has a superb run from 1996-2000, in what I felt to be the climax of his career, and somehow this period goes unaddressed. Walcott drops 4 title shots against an aging Louis and a former middleweight in Charles, all in his best years, yet nothing is ever made of this.....Let's also not forget losing to guys like Abe Simon and some other 11-15 journeyman who's name I can't think of...

I like good debates, and enjoy hearing both sides of an argument, but there are so many double standards and hipocracies where certain comparisons are concerned.

 

Agreed. There is room for grey areas in boxing. No one is right all the time and opinions can and should vary on a message board. However, a fair and balanced approach on this board at times is lacking.

If you ask me, Walcott's reputation is inflated for giving Marciano and Louis tough fights. Fans of Marciano and Louis seem to go out of their way to put Walcott on some pedestal beyond verbal reproach. Yes-- we know Walcott on his best night was very good, but the fair and balanced view says Walcott was suspect on more than one occasion. The bottom line is Walcott's performance vs Marciano and Louis expose their weaknesses, and its not above reason to say quite a few other fighters could do the same thing....even if they were filmed in color.

 

I just looked at the first round KO of Walcot, the count was a tad fast, and his glove was still on the floor at ten. My count it was nine....go to You Tube and count it your self....but It don't matter now.
He did not tank, dive or other wise.

Archie Moore, also went though a lot of losses before getting there as an old man........ Charles beat him like a drum. No one down rates Moore for those loses. And Moore didn't have a family to feed and a job to hold down.


I think it was 5 Championship fights vs Charles counting the fact that Charles was the Belt Champ after Louis retired.
Charles was a Champion before he Unified. He beat some 7 good men as Belt Champ, before they finally let him fight as The Undisputed Champ.

Maxim was a very dammed good fighter...for a long time, vs a lot of dammed good fighters.

Much is made of Holms who never unified and never tried, and fought 7 prospects (look up the kiddy parade's records) and one contneder in his 8 fights before Spinks...in fact he joined the IBF, becasue they the belt he was wearing finally demanded he fight live bodies.

I have to rate Walcot higher then Holms, because as Champ Holms fought a hell of a lot of Who?s. He was after all a creature of Don King.

I was "there" at the time, and never heard of half the men he fought for his championship.....there was a lot of hype.....while he ignored who ever had the other belt.
Look closely at his record some day....a lot of "championship" fights against no bodies. One of them was someone who's only claim to glory was Ali fought him, because Ali had cleaned out the division....and the Guy was European and Ali could go to Europe and pick up a pay check.
Walcot definatly fought better men than Holms.

Back then you had a single line of well known contenders, who had ot fight other contenders and often to stay in line and advance up that line....real contenders.

Today the top four contenders are belt champs, and the contender picks which Champ he wants to fight.
So someone fighting his number one contender is actually fighting the number 5 guy, and today someone fighting the "number 6" guy is normal...
That would be like a real Champ fighting the number 9 man...that happened but not for the Championship.
Back Walcott's time you can be dammed sure the men on the top ten list were very well known to the fight fan.

Baseball, Boxing,were first and second, and Football was distant lapped third,
and Basket ball was as popular as Hockey....in fact I saw a lot more Hockey games on fuzzy B&W TV than I saw basketball games. Same goes for Football, actually.
At last in the North East.

 

Mendoz your wrong. The Prime Ezzard Charles like to fight on his toes gliding and moving in and out slippery.......the prime ezzard charles stick and moved he was a counterpuncher boxer. I dont know where you get this charles like to brawl baloney because that was not charles style and film 1946-51 certainly does not show that

 

I agree. It also looks better to be kayoed by louis and marciano rather than rahman and mccall

 

walcott beat the hell out of abe simon. i have a fight report from ted spoon if anyone wants to see it.


- The more and More I watch of Ezzard Charles, the more I think his handspeed is underated. His straight punches were so sharp and fast, they snapped in there like bullets, his handspeed is WAY up there on the top of the list