why did walcott get a third title shot at charles?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:21

because walcott dropped a decision to rex layne in 1950 and then layne knocked out bob satterfield and established himself as the top contender. now the other two top contenders were walcott and old joe louis.

but shouldnt rex layne have been given the shot instead of walcott who already had 2 chanches?

then rocky marciano knocked out rex layne to establish himself as the # 2 contender behind joe louis, so it seems he should have got the title shot instead of walcott

so it seems to me louis, layne, marciano should have got the shot over walcott. when the walcott-charles III bout was made, marciano had not yet beaten layne so he hadnt probably deserved it yet. so it looks to me rex layne got screwed. i mean walcott had fought charles months before and lost and got outpointed by layne so now walcott was coming off two losses yet somehow got ANOTHER shot

what i think should have happened was charles waits for the winner of layne-marciano bout and takes on him. it seems walcott really lucked out with that title shot.

layne should not have taken that marciano fight, it was risky even though he was the favorite. layne should have tried to get a direct shot at charles.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 Jan 2006, 17:17

..okay..here's the reason..and it comes direct from inside the charles camp. jake mintz had been shoehorned into the charles management circles by forces who squeezed the original "owners"
mostly out. ezzard liked to keep busy but there was no fight scheduled right at this time. suddenly jake mintz said he ...unilaterally....had virtually scheduled one more with walcott. said jersey joe would like to retire and it would be nice to get him one more good purse. my source said this was crazy...that you don't fight a guy like that three times. but...as ezzard agreed ...give walcott a purse and then go on to the other contenders....the match was made. then...someone from the walcott camp contacted the charles people to thank mintz for the $10,000 fee he's asked for for making the match. my contact said the other charles people yelled...they knew nothing about any $10,000 "fee"...and it was obvious that jake had pulled a fast one...but by now their influence was gone.

now...here's the kicker....my contact said ezzard was down to 167 pounds....that it not a typo..at the time mintz was doing the secret dealing. another from one I know in the charles camp said ezzard was down around to 170 or 171. either way, he had to train to get his weight up...which was always a problem with him.

no excuses saying this is why charles lost. but it is an accurate story behind the making of the match itself.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 Jan 2006, 17:21

..p.s. this may be the first time this story has appeared anywhere except maybe on inside circles. i'm doing it now only because one...i'm anonymous here...and two....it's been such a long time that those who excelled in manufacturing cement shoes are probably no longer living on this earthly sphere.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 13 Jan 2006, 17:21

Great post Jaclem.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Jan 2006, 00:51

Decagon wrote:I've always suspected that Walcott took a dive of sorts against Layne in exchange for another title shot.

thats ridiculous. have u even seen the fight?? i bet u havnt to make such remarks

regarding the walcott-layne fight, it was a simple case of an overweight(walcott weighing in over 200lb) and overconfident walcott taking a layne lightly. layne at the time was considered a a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. but i watched the fight, layne simply outworked walcott bullying walcott into the ropes and doing damage and better work on the inside. it was a big upset. walcott took layne lightly and probably didnt train too hard(consider him coming in over 200lb) and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch.

and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the layne after 1952 that went on to lose a lot. the 50-52 layne was a lot better, he had a short prime.

heres what a joe who saw layne live had to say

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."

so what i am implying was it wasnt a dive. it was just a case of an overconfident walcott taking a game fighter lightly and getting upset. film indicates nothing in the sort that he took a dive.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Jan 2006, 00:51

Jaclem wrote:..okay..here's the reason..and it comes direct from inside the charles camp. jake mintz had been shoehorned into the charles management circles by forces who squeezed the original "owners"
mostly out. ezzard liked to keep busy but there was no fight scheduled right at this time. suddenly jake mintz said he ...unilaterally....had virtually scheduled one more with walcott. said jersey joe would like to retire and it would be nice to get him one more good purse. my source said this was crazy...that you don't fight a guy like that three times. but...as ezzard agreed ...give walcott a purse and then go on to the other contenders....the match was made. then...someone from the walcott camp contacted the charles people to thank mintz for the $10,000 fee he's asked for for making the match. my contact said the other charles people yelled...they knew nothing about any $10,000 "fee"...and it was obvious that jake had pulled a fast one...but by now their influence was gone.

now...here's the kicker....my contact said ezzard was down to 167 pounds....that it not a typo..at the time mintz was doing the secret dealing. another from one I know in the charles camp said ezzard was down around to 170 or 171. either way, he had to train to get his weight up...which was always a problem with him.

no excuses saying this is why charles lost. but it is an accurate story behind the making of the match itself.

thanx awesome info

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Jan 2006, 02:46

..the buster's description of the layne/walcott fight is a good one. though i haven't seen it since it was onlive tv i remember it was one of walcott's worst fights. layne just bulled him around the ring and was much too strong for walcott that night, and jersey joe knew it early and spent most of the fight on defense. i don't remember his weight, but brockton's mention of it explains a lot. plus...he's right on layne. he was one strong, tough guy....young and with stamina.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 14 Jan 2006, 04:42

Just to put in a word here, although Walcott had lost his last two fights when he got his third shot at Charles, I would note that many who saw the second fight thought Walcott was worthy of another try at the title. Here are some quotes from the May, 1951 RING Magazine after the second Charles Walcott-fight:

Though Charles definitely won the fight with Walcott, although not by the wide margin which the tabs of the officials indicated, the bout proved costly to him. Besides losing prestige by not halting his opponent, Ezzard left the Detroit Olympia Stadium with a huge cauliflower ear and the boos of the gathering ringing in his ears...
"Ol' Man River. He Just Keeps Rolling Along." Like the famous Tennyson's brook, Old Man Jersey Joe Walcott just refuses to be shunted onto the sidelines. He keeps tossing scares into heavyweight champions and retains his role as the perennial challenger and contender. They simply can't put him out of the heavyweight picture...
They can't go wrong by giving Walcott another shot at the crown.

In other words, although he lost, Walcott had Charles hurt a couple times and made an impressive late rally in their second fight, and he was still a major player in the division. I would agree that Layne was a more deserving challenger than Walcott at that point, having recently beaten Walcott and then gone on an impressive winning streak, but I don't think the choice to give Walcott another shot was a ridiculous one.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 14 Jan 2006, 05:13

Jaclem wrote:..the buster's description of the layne/walcott fight is a good one. though i haven't seen it since it was onlive tv i remember it was one of walcott's worst fights. layne just bulled him around the ring and was much too strong for walcott that night, and jersey joe knew it early and spent most of the fight on defense. i don't remember his weight, but brockton's mention of it explains a lot. plus...he's right on layne. he was one strong, tough guy....young and with stamina.

And while I've got it out, here's more from RING Magazine, on Layne after his fight with Satterfield:

Bob Satterfield, Chicagoan, had been raining punches of Rex's coconut-like noggin all night. The cherubic-faced Mormon from Lewiston, Utah, fondled the sore spots. Satterfield had been laid to rest in 2:56 of the eighth canto when Mark Conn, the arbiter, halted the contest with Bob helpless from a short right to the jaw...
It was suggested right after the contest that Rex had youth, strength, could take and give it, had showed improvement in his boxing form since his last two Garden appearances against Jersey Joe Walcott and Cesar Brion, respectively, but that he was still green and needed much seasoning in the technique of boxing.
Marvin Jensen, the mink-raising guardian of Layne's ring fortunes, rushed to the defense. "He can box a lot better than he has shown since coming East. Did you see that boy punch? Ole Rex here sure has what it takes. He's full of fight."
"Yeah," someone said, "but how long will he be full of fight if he doesn't learn how to protect himself better?"
Rex interrupted: "A couple more fights like this and I'll be playing marbles," he quipped...
A group had gathered and someone said, "Rex has a whale of a right, but why doesn't he use his left more?"
Jensen jumped into the breach. "Ole Rex here has a dandy of a left hand but he injured it in an early fight and only recently has he started to develop it again..."
"He's being fed to the lions," has been the cry. But Layne has defeated all three[Walcott, Brion, and Satterfield], and by so doing, he is now in a spot to demand recognition as a top challenger. After all, success is what counts, and Layne has come through with victories. His T.N.T. sock and courage have done that for him.

"Layne's impressive knockout of Bob Satterfield brought from Jack Dempsey the statement that he believed that the young man from Salt Lake could beat Ezzard Charles, 'right now.' [I would note, of course, that Dempsey was from the same state and district as Layne and a supporter]
"Gene Tunney, who also saw the knockout of Satterfield, demurred. "Give Layne another six months, and he will do that."

It's interesting how the commentary in the first article, and particularly Layne's own "A couple more fight like this and I'll be playing marbles" comment, foreshadows exactly what happened- he kept fighting twice a month and taking on top contenders in tough fights on a regular basis until he suffered a couple brutal losses against Marciano and Charles, and after that, he sharply declined and fell apart as a fighter.
But certainly his early accomplishments and the timeframe in which he achieved them are impressive. He won the National AAU Amateur tournament with almost no prior experience, beat three major contenders with only two years as a pro under his belt, all of whom were more experienced than him, over the course of only a few months, and built up quite a bit of momentum and a highly impressive resume with little experience or training before running into a brick wall in Marciano and suffering a brutal loss, then, instead of being given a rest period and a couple easy fights, being thrown in with ex-champion Charles in his very next fight, getting hammered again, and ending up damaged goods. In the first half of his career, as you can note above, Layne was known for being very durable and resilient, but by later fights, he was flat-out punch-drunk, slow and flabby, and started going down from everything. Layne was a good young fighter who was destroyed early on by poor management, which is somewhat understandable, since his manager, Marv Jensen, was an amateur promoter and had no prior experience managing pros.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Jan 2006, 14:50

..good stuff on rex layne. i remember that fight with satterfield and i couldn't believe how layne just kept taking those satterfield bombs.

re: walcott lll.....yeah, the match had some credibility , for the reasons given. in their previous fight walcott finished strong and ezzard's ear was the size of a flyweight's head. but...he won...no question about it. as for the booing, charles was booed more than he was cheered during his title reign. he was treated badly and inaccurately by the press.

i've thought about doing a thread on this, but it would be long and i haven't had the time.

as for walcott.....he lost a lot of favor after the second louis fight, but got most of it back later. very popular with the boxing gentry....his good fighting at what was then considered an advanced age and his general likeability kept him as a virtual permanent contender.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 16 Jan 2006, 02:48

..marcianio/frazier...the dempsey quote that layne could beat charles "right now" was a bit premature. (charles kicked hell out of layne the first time they fought)..but dempsey is an example of how one can make one's own prophecies come true. indeed, layne did "beat" charles...well....let's say he won a decison...in utah....where he, a mormon was appearing before home town mormon folks and the referee was....tah dah....jack dempsey. he was also the sole judge. and after a good battle in which charles was considered by everyone but the friendly natives and the mormon referee the winner...dempsey ..again, the only judge, called it two rounds for layne, one for charles, and eight even. this was after the fight....at the very end of the fight he merely raised layne's hand. it was when he was asked for the actual scoring that he came up with above numbers. when the next day's papers expressed wonder at this call, dempsey "clarified" it by saying he meant..."I thought layne won, about two to one." still a tad puzzling...two one what? oh..have i mentioned there was no scorecard? at no time did dempsey ever write the scoring of a round as it ended.