Why I think Jersey Joe Walcott rates as the better "Heavyweight" than Ezzard Charles

Have you seen this entire fight on film?

By the way, i can understand you rank Walcott higher, Walcott #10 and Charles #18? That's a big difference. I usually rank them next to each other because they're pretty close in my opinion.

 

I tend to have Walcott ahead by a hair because he made a cleaner sweep of the rankings.

 

That's nice, how many rounds did you give to Louis?


But i actually asked about Charles-Walcott IV. It is my understanding that only highlights are available. Based on that it would be hard to be as certain about the validity of the decision as you seem to be.


By the way, the majority of the press thought Charles won his fights with Johnson and Layne. Interesting to take into account.

 

of there 4th fight the rounds I have are: -

Rounds 1, 5, 9, 12, 13 & 15

 

Again you show yourself up as by far the biggest hypocrite on the forum. What is it you always said to me? Charles definitely won the fight? Apparently he lost - now that it suits your latest argument.

 

Any chance you could you tube the 15 rounds of Louis vs Walcott? I would like to score that one.

Legendary fight writer " Flash Gordon ", a cult icon among the New York fight scene felt Walcott was the 3rd best heavyweight of all time.

 

Labelling you a hypocrite is not name calling but mere truth telling. And don't try to fob me off by using comforting or welcoming endings to your sentences. I detest you.

Utter bollocks. Spin any faster and you'll lose your teeth.

 

I don't know. SuzieQ makes some good points, and maybe Walcott did beat a few more top heavyweights, but then again, I still say its a very close call.

 

While I also rank Walcott higher, I have him very slightly so and don't think eight spaces is justified. This is a case where we can have a very, very strong look at how well these guys stacked up both against each other and against the same opponents within very close proximity of each other. Now, consider:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walcott's record against Jimmy Bivins: 1-0.
Charles' record against Bivins: 4-1.
The most relevant comparison in the case of Bivins is the fights these guys had against him within a year of each other in 1946. Both won decisions. Walcott had Bivins down early, while Charles was put down by Bivins early. Walcott officially went to a split decision, but the ringsider accounts I've seen report that he "had the advantage all the way" and seem to indicate that the SD was unjustified. Charles had a UD. Overall, it's very difficult to give either man a real edge against Bivins. Maybe a slight advantage to Walcott because he beat Bivins when he was coming off his incredible winning streak and had him down.

Walcott's record against Maxim: 2-1
Charles' record against Maxim: 5-0
Walcott's loss to Maxim is reported in newspaper accounts I've seen to have been an "unpopular" and "disputed" decision. It's possible, then, that Jersey Joe should be 3-0 against Maxim. However, even then, all three fights were close, while Charles dominated some of his fights with Maxim and was never as close as a split decision. Edge to Charles.

Walcott's record against Elmer Ray: 2-1
Charles' record against Elmer Ray: 1-1
It's worth noting here that Walcott's first win over Ray came when both of them were extremely green fighters, especially Ray, and so is less significant than the other Walcott/Ray fights. Both Walcott and Charles lost very close decisions to Ray in their first fights with him in '46-47, with Charles' being a bit closer (in that most papers I've seen have said that Walcott's loss to Ray was extremely close, but Ray edged it, while they're about 50/50 on who won Charles-Ray I). Both of them then avenged that loss the following year, Walcott by MD (NOTE: he had Ray down in the first, third and fourth and would have won by a comfortable margin on a points system) and Charles by KO 9 in what was reportedly a tough fight until Ray wore down late. Worth noting here is that by Charles' rematch with Ray, Ray had become considerably less active, was getting up there in years and was considered by ringsiders to be showing visible signs of decline. All-in-all very similar results. I think I'll say very slight edge to Walcott.

Walcott's record against Baksi: 1-0
Charles' record against Baksi: 1-0
Not much to tell here. They both pretty soundly beat Baksi, Walcott outboxing him over 10, Charles making him quit in the 11th. No advantage.

Walcott's record against Lee Oma: 1-0
Charles' record against Lee Oma: 1-0
Walcott decked him early and boxed to a 10-round UD, Charles TKO'd him in 11. No advantage.

Walcott's record against Joe Louis: officially 0-2, unofficially 1-1
Charles' record against Joe Louis: 1-0
While Charles obviously has the better numerical record here, Walcott fought a considerably younger, fitter and more dangerous Louis than Charles did. Walcott's performance in the first Louis fight, which most will agree amounts to a great win, outstrips Charles' boxing to a UD in their match accomplishment-wise. However, one can't really say Walcott "did better" against Louis, only that he faced a younger one. While Walcott gets more historical "points" so to speak for what he did against Louis, you can't fairly judge that either of them did better.

Walcott and Charles' record against each other: 2-2
Charles had close-but-clear-cut wins in the first two fights, Walcott had the most dominant and emphatic win of the series with his knockout of Charles in their third fight, and the fourth fight went to a close and debatable decision, while Charles' decisions were both clear. Hence, one can look at either man as having the edge here if he puts the right slant on it. Advantage: Even

Walcott's record against Rex Layne: 0-1
Charles' record against Rex Layne: 2-1
While I believe Walcott faced the better Layne (before what Marciano did to him), the fact is that he lost and never avenged it, while Charles holds a 2-out-of-three edge and arguably won the loss. Edge to Charles.

Walcott's record against Harold Johnson: 1-0
Charles' record against Harold Johnson: 0-1
Walcott pretty handily beat Johnson, flooring him in the first and causing him to injure his back in the process, leading to his collapse in the third. Charles lost a very close split decision; looking through newspaper accounts, I see this fight described as an "exceptionally close, fast and bruising 10-rounder." The one or two newspaper accounts I've seen tend to lean towards Johnson as having deserved it, but the majority of the fans I know of who've watched the fight think Charles won. Not really important to the issue at hand, here, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss that decision. Advantage Walcott.

Walcott's record against Marciano: 0-2
Charles' record against Marciano: 0-2
Yet again, strikingly similar results. Both men gave Marciano hell but lost epic battles. Charles has a better consistency between the two fights, as in he gave Marciano a war the first time and at least didn't get completely blown out in the rematch, but Walcott came the closest between the two to legitimately beating Marciano by skill (Charles' tearing Marciano's nose cartilege with what was in all probability an elbow in the rematch doesn't really enhance his claim to ability or competitiveness much; it was a freak-of-nature incident), having Rocky insurmountably behind on points after 12. I'll call this one even.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, out of these 10 head-to-head/common opponent results, I come to a 3-2-5 edge for Walcott- so close they're practically identical. And most of those were highly debatable; the only ones where you can really definitively say one guy did better are Charles against Maxim and Layne and Walcott against Johnson. Numerically, it's worth noting that Charles has a 17-8 to 11-8 (counting Joe's unofficial win) edge here, but I will point out that that's entirely because he beat Bivins and Maxim a total of 9 times, instead of 3 like Walcott (who had much shorter series with them), and many of his fights with those two were at middleweight and light heavyweight, meaning they're less relevant to his heavyweight career- and he faced the older Louis.
Who has the more accomplished career on the whole? Again, it's paper thin. Win-loss record-wise, Charles' is a little less spotty in his prime. He had the longer title reign and was much more active as champion. However, a review of the ratings of that time period will show that Walcott more thoroughly cleaned out the top contenders of the era overall even though he wasn't holding the title at the time, beating a few top guys who Charles skipped over, Walcott generally fought the guys first, when they were closer to their absolute peaks, and his "should've-been" win over Louis is something special.

Quite sincerely, I don't believe there have ever been two elite heavyweights in any era who were more evenly matched than Walcott and Charles. There is no room for any seven spaces between them, in my opinion. I've got them at #14 and 15 respectively, myself.

 

I have the August 1952 issue of the Ring which covers the 4th Charles-Walcott fight. Dan Daniel did the report. He polled all 41 writers present at the fight. 24 had Charles winning. 17 had Walcott winning. Included in the Charles group were James Dawson of the NY Times (9-6), Jack Hand of the AP (7-6-2), Arthur Daley of the NY Times (11-4), and Oscar Fraley-later the author of "The Untouchables"-of UPI (8-7). Walcott supporters included Red Smith of the NY Herald-Tribune (8-7), Wilfred Smith of the Chicago Tribune (8-6-1), Lew Burton of the NY Journal-American (11-3-1), and Joe Nichols of the NY Times (13-2). Both Nat Fleischer and Dan Daniel had it 9-6 for Charles.

As well as being of interest concerning this Walcott-Charles bout, I think the wide swing of opinion casts some doubt on the value of newspaper decisions back in the no decision era.

 

Press votes one Walcott-Charles IV-taken from The Ring, Aug, 1952 Page 4:

For Charles
Nat Fleischer-The Ring---9-6
Dan Daniel-The Ring---9-6
Nat Loubet-The Ring---7-7-1 point edge Charles
Jack Cuddy-UPI---9-5-1
Bill Lissen-Boston Post---7-5-3
Jim Jennings-NY Mirror---9-4-2
James Dawson-NY Times---9-6
John Webster-Philadelphia Inquirer---8-7
Al Abrams-Pittsburg Post-Gazette---8-4-3
Tommy Devine-Detroit Free Press---9-4-2
Jack Hand-AP---7-6-2
Anthony Morenchi-Neward Star-Ledger---9-6
A. B. McGinley-Hartford Times---8-6-1
Sam Green-Detroit News---8-6-1
Murray Rose-AP---7-6-2
Stan Optowski-UPI---9-5-1
Gene Ward-New York News---8-6-1
Jesse Abramson-NY Harold-Tribune---7-6-2
Frank O'Gara-Philadelphia Inquirer---8-7
Arthur Daley-NY Times---11-4
Franklin Lewis-Cleveland Press---11-3-1
Sec Taylor-Des Moines Register-Tribune---8-6-1
Tommy Holmes-Brooklyn Eagle---7-6-2
Oscar Fraley-UPI---8-7

For Walcott
Joe Williams-NY World-Telegram and Sun---8-7
Al Clark-Harrisburg News---9-3-2
John Travis-Harrisburg Patriot---9-3-3
Charles Einstein-Internation News Service---7-6-2
Jack Freid-Philadelphia Bulletin---8-7
Tony Zecca-International News Service---9-6
Red Smith-NY Herald Tribune---8-7
Dana Mozley-NY News---8-6-1
Dave Brady-Washington Post---8-6-1
Shirley Povich-Washington Post---7-6-2
Wilfred Smith-Chicago Tribune---8-6-1
Frank Graham-NY Journal-American---9-6
Lew Burton-NY Journal-American---11-3-1
Gene Kessler-Chicago Sun Times---7-5-3
Joe Nichols-NY Times---13-2
Russ Green-UPI---9-6
Tony Cardaro-Des Moines Register-Tribune---7-7-1 points edge to Walcott

 

Looks like a 24-17 press-row edge for Charles. What's really interesting is how wide the variance here is; all the way from 11-3-1 Charles to 13-2 Walcott!

All three judges did have it for Walcott, which should, of course, be taken into account as well. It's a shame we don't have the complete film of this fight to judge for ourselves.