At middleweight and Light-Heavyweight, YES! at heavyweight? no. Its a matter of opinion of course, but I believe Walcott did the more impressive work and beat better opposition here. In fact, since your into Historians Opinions....IBRO panel of historians(I actually am a member of IBRO) made a all time top 20 heavyweight list. Walcott came in at # 16, Charles # 17, one spot higher. I don't know what your defintion of an ATG is, but walcott is undisputably a great fighter and top 15-20 heavyweight of all time.
I mean there no right or wrong answer to who rates higher between Walcott and Charles at heavyweight, and your opinion of Charles deserving to be higher at heavyweight is no more wrong than my opinion. But whats wrong is for one to say "charles undisputably is the better heavyweight than walcott" is way off. same for me if I said "there is no way charles can rank above walcott at heavyweight. Its personel perference, I prefer Walcott over charles at heavyweight, but thats just my opinion. I think something we can both agree on is they are neck and neck. Obviousely. Charles is in my top 5 p4p of all time. Walcott doesnt even crack my top 50.
Yes, IBRO rated Walcott just above Charles as Heavyweights. Charles was also rated #2 as a Light Heavyweight, behind Archie Moore and he was also rated tied for #12 with Sugar Ray Leonard, in the All-Time Pound for Pound Ratings. I am a charter member of IBRO BUT I didn't vote in this because I was out for a while, and neither did many other members. [FONT="]Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT] Charles ranks #13 and Walcott is not rated in the Top 80, BUT this is again, was POUND FOR POUND. [FONT="]Max [/FONT][FONT="]Kellerman[/FONT] rates Charles at #10 Pound for Pound. I have most of the Top Boxing Historian Ratings, and they all rate them pretty close as heavyweights, BUT most of them have Charles with a small edge. Most of them don't rate them in the top 10 either. Here's some of the ratings that I have: -Charles----Walcott 1---16 -------13 2---16 -------18 3---18 -------NR 4----7 -------NR 5---10 -------NR 6----9 -------NR 7---NR --------8 8---LH -------13 9----7 -------NR 10--12 -------13 11--10 -------NR 12--NR --------9 13--19 -------NR 14--11 -------13 NR = Not Rated LH = Rated as a Light Heavyweight
Thanx Henry, I was a 2 year member of IBRO and am strongly considering renewing my membership, its a great time. You do alot for the organization. And Thanx for that chart above. Also if you have the time, do you happen to know if 1940s-50s heavyweight Sid Peaks ever cracked the monthly Ring Magazine heavyweight rankings?
Joe Walcott got knocked out by the massive and strong Abe Simon. A prime Louis (not the past-it one that fought Walcott) KO'd Abe Simon in beautiful fashion. Even a past-it Louis stopped Walcott late in the fight (in the rematch), just as did a prime Marciano. Just imagine what a prime Louis would have done with Walcott.
Nicely done, Woddy. Had I not remembered you from last year as a perfectly respectable poster, I might have actually been fooled into thinking that you had taken complete leave of your senses. As it wasm whatever rise that you wanted to get out of the Classic section has been achieved.
I like Louis a lot. He's one of my favorite fighters. But I've learned to except that fighters are better now than in the past. Louis, Marciano and even Ali are not excempt from this fact. One thing that could never be taken away from Louis though is his accomplishments. Also at that point of time there never was a fighter like him before.
If we give Walcott the first Louis fight, and then, to be consistent, give Charles the fourth fight, we are looking at a championship record of 2(1)-6(3). If we go strictly by decisions rendered, it works out the same: 2(1)-6(3). On what grounds can a heavyweight losing 6 of 8 championship fights (that's .25 winning percentage), and losing a quarter of his fights over all, be regarded as an all-time great heavyweight?
Yes Sid Peaks did. He was rated in the Top 10 by Ring Magazine from April 1948 to July 1948, for a total of 4 months. His highest ratings was #3 after beating Johnny Shkor, BUT after losing to Colion Chaney, being knocked out twice by Rusty Payne, he was out of the ratings for good. Right now I have to go as I will be running the meeting for the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame tonight. I am in my 24th year as President and almost 30 years as their Historian.
How is that being consistent? Walcott-Louis I was a genuine Robbery, I believe 2/3 of Ringsiders scored it for Walcott not to mention John Garfield, a ESB poster, was live at the arena that night to watch the fight. Garfield, a huge joe louis fan, thought it was one of the worst decisions of all time and that no one thought louis won. On the otherhand, The Poll of ringsiders of Walcott-Charles IV was 24 to 17, which is practically even. This is not a robbery, just a hard fight to score. Scorecards went from variety of 11 rounds to 3 with 2 even from charles all the way to 13 rounds to 2 in favor of Walcott. Look at who he was facing....Joe Louis arguebably the greatest heavyweight of all time. How many heavyweight champions would be lucky to escape 1-1 in a 2 fight series with him? Then 2ndly he runs into ezzard Charles and goes 2-2 with him, which is even stevens and pretty good IMO. then he runs into Rocky Marciano a top 5 all time heavyweight in the prime of his career, at age 38-39....how many heavyweight champions at age 38-39 could beat a prime rocky marciano?
>>Not so. I think Norton, and Witherpsoon were better than Spinks. Besides, Holmes was old when he was competive with Holyfield, and coming off a lay off at age 38 vs a prime Tyson. In Holmes prime, he was undefeated, never looked bad vs light heavies, or was floored nearly as often as Louis was. In his old age, Holmes was a better older fighter than Louis was. Bottom line is a prime Joe Louis lost in his prime, got a lucky decsion vs Walcott, and nearly lost to lesser guys that Holmes would beat easily. It sounds like you been reading Monte's stuff. No-- Louis footwork was not very good. He looked robotic and slow in many fights in the 1930's. Louis' guard was horrible, and he stuck his face forward, which is a real no-no in boxing. Sure he was able to duck some wild swings from non-skilled guys in Max Baer, then again the other Baer ( Buddy )floroed Louis, and so did Galento. If you want to be honest, Louis defense was not that great on flim, and neither was his chin. To call Louis defense " outstanding " to me is a real reach.
I don't know where you are getting these polls, Suzie. Every New York Times reporter who covered the story (at least the stories I read) believed Louis won the first fight because, as one reporter put it (8-7), he made the fight and, as another one stated (9-6), never before has a fighter won the heavyweight title by running away. They admitted Louis looked bad. His timing was off. His defense, which they noted was never very good, was now almost nonexistent. If Walcott carried a serious punch, they wrote, then he would have been champion. But outside of the sucker punching (their term), Walcott did a lot of posing. This wasn't the referee's judgment. But he was outvoted by the judges. Had it been a 10-must system, it is generally agreed the outcome would have been different. This wasn't true for Charles-Walcott IV. The majority not only agreed that Charles won it, but that Walcott got the decision because everybody liked the old man. It was a sentimental vote. A charity vote. So if you are going to go against the Louis-Walcott decision then you must to be consistent and go against the Walcott-Charles decision. My point, though, is that whether you do or whether you don't, the outcome is the same: Walcott loses 75 percent of the title fights he was in. I cannot agree with several assertions you make. Louis is not in any serious fashion the greatest heavyweight of all time. And at the time Walcott faced him, he was a shadow of his former self. Everybody knows that. Louis described himself against Walcott as a "second rater." He retired because of his performance against Walcott. Marciano is not a top five all-time heavyweight.
"Every New York Times reporter who covered the story believed Louis won the fight" There were many more papers covering this fight than just the New York Times--what did the majority actually think. Do you have any info on that. Charles-Walcott IV---The ringside press per Ring Magazine went 24 to 17 for Charles, but the Ring quotes men who were not polled--Bill Corum and Lester Bromberg, who favored Walcott and along with the three officials the vote was a close 24 to 22, hardly overwhelming. Here are some of the Ring quotes: "Charles got licked"---Bill Corum "Charles was too timid to take the title away."----Lew Burton "Walcott had scored solid and often enough . . . to warrant the reward of the three officials."-----Joe Williams "Walcott won it the way no one thought he had a chance to do it."-----Lester Bromberg "You can't take the title away from the champion in a close fight like that."-----Judge McTiernan The last probably points to why Walcott got the decision in this close fight. He had the advantage of being champion, as Louis did in the first Walcott fight. Charles simply fought a too cautious fight. He let it go to a close decision. He did not go out and win the fight without doubt. And in a close fight, Walcott finished stronger and took the last round. The crowd booed the decision in the first Louis-Walcott fight. They cheered the decision in the 4th Charles-Walcott fight.