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

Good stuff, Fogey and MF.

I think Walcott's style causes the scores to be so divided. A man like Joe Nichols clearly liked his passive, picking-his-shots-style.

One thing to remember here is that back in those days, aggression (whether effective or not) did seem to effect the scoring a bit. "Fight like a real man".
Louis, who is obviously a product of that time, didn't think much of Ali's style because he ran. Perhaps some people thought the same about Walcott?
Something that supports this assertion is that Fleischer had it 9-6 for Charles. I think if anyone scores on a "classic" basis then it is Fleischer.


About 60% has it for Charles. An interesting comparison is Leonard-Hagler.
In the press row, about 60% had Leonard winning there. A lot of the scoring of that fight comes down to what way you score, the aggressor, light but scoring punches or fewer harder ones that backed him up, etc.


Given the amount of disputes among the scoring, perhaps it wouldn't be a stretch to call this fight even. Maybe it is a bit of historic revisionism as the judges all three did give it to Walcott. But my impression is that Charles has a slight edge in their individual fights.

 

Flash was well respected in the N.Y. boxing scene, I have not heard his name mentioned in years, he was at every fight and watched every fight from the 4 rounders to the Big fights, He was brilliant in the boxing jendra

 

I have heard this too. Can anyone post some of his stuff?

 

But SuzieQ, if Walcott has so much better tools, size and style against the heavyweight field, then why did he compile an extremely similar record to Charles against the very same heavyweight field? Doesn't it imply that despite styles and all you mention, they're pretty even head-to-head?

 

I usually rate Charles one place above Walcott but I think the argument that Walcott would do better against the historic field of heavyweight champions and contenders is pretty good.

Head-to-head they are basically equal. Against the common opponents of the day they basically even out too.

But I can imagine Walcott doing better against some of the bigger great heavyweights too.
Walcott was incredibly strong and hit a ton according to guys who faced him like W.Reddish and C.Sheppard. He had a "cute" style but he could bang and he was a rock in the clinches.

Having said all that, it could be argued that Charles would dominate more of the smaller, speedier historic heavyweights.

I think I'd always end up rating these guys together. At least around #14 or #15, maybe higher.

 

Good points.

Ezzard Charles speed and unique boxing ability might have made him better fit for fighting men like Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes, and other fighters who were generally boxers. He was very craftly and difficult to hit, plus showed that he could take a punch from men such as Rocky marciano. Walcott, on the otherhand, had a tad more size and strength along with a different skill set, that might have given punchers like Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, George Foreman and Sonny Liston a better fight. No, I don't think that he'd beat those guys, but he was probably better suited to be in the same ring with them than Charles was.

I agree with your assesment that these two guys should probably be rated closely together in the similar fashion that say Jack johnson and James Jeffries are paired up. I haven't constructed an all time great list in ages and likely will never bother to again. Therefore, I'm not real sure as to what number to asign them. Nevertheless, it is a very difficult task to give one of them a higher rating than the other.

 

I agree that Walcott should be ranked above Charles at heavyweight is résumé is thicker but Charles obviously ranks higher p4p.

 

George

 

That's a real long post to be completely wrong on.