BoxRec

I am watching some footage of the Jersey Joe Walcott vs Ezzard Charles four-fight series. All of them, World Championship bouts for the heavyweight crown. Interesting to see the styles of both men. Both were very clever in the way they attacked each other. For a 37 year old guy, Walcott looked terrific and in shape. He was older than the great Joe Louis for a couple of months. Louis was the one that told the boxing ruling bodies that both of them should have dispute the vacant Heavyweight Title.

Is there the complete footage of the first fight between the two? I only could find the last 3 rounds on YouTube. It was supposed to be the actual TV broadcast of June 22, 1949.

The same happened for the other 3 fights. They rounds are not totally complete. But, of watching both men tangle, is interesting how rivals could adjust for the next time around. Charles clearly won the second fight, but there's not much of footage, either. The third fight, Walcott won by a terrific knockout. A superb uppercut to Charles's chin. He made history as the oldest man to win the Heavyweight Championship. And this was his 5th try. I haven't watched fight #4, yet. But, who was the better fighter between the two? They were two evenly matched fighters.

Ezzard was the best "textbook" fighter I've ever seen on film. Walcott was truly an innovator, making new set up's and trap's on the fly. Both men are seriously underrated at heavyweight. P4P, no question Charles. Walcott, in my view, was the best heavyweight stylist until Cassius Clay came along.

I loved both...…... Ezzard Charles is the best Light Heavyweight of all time in my opinion and could have fought at Cruiserweight today Jersey Joe who was really a Cruiserweight was the slightly bigger man of the two Jersey Joe was a Brilliant Tactician at the ripe old age of 38 when he lost the Heavyweight Title he was clearly outboxing and leading on the three judge's card's when the fight ended in round 13 against undefeated Heavyweight Legend Rocky Marciano...…...Jersey Joe lost to some fighter's through out his career that were not on his level in saying that I lean slightly towards Jersey Joe because he was 7 year's older at 35 when their 4 fight's begun in 1949 And he was robbed against the Great Joe Louis 3 year's before Ezzard beat Louis when The Brown Bomber was 36.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑20 May 2019, 23:14 Ezzard was the best "textbook" fighter I've ever seen on film. Walcott was truly an innovator, making new set up's and trap's on the fly. Both men are seriously underrated at heavyweight. P4P, no question Charles. Walcott, in my view, was the best heavyweight stylist until Cassius Clay came along.

I agree about Charles being better in a p4p sense, but Walcott being more impressive at the HWs. Walcott was more conclusive in their series and he was more impressive against Marciano despite being KOed twice. Walcott was winning their first fight wide, Charles wasn't that close to winning Rocky.

Wasn't Charles a round away from beating rocky In that second fight as he split his nose down the middle?

DrDuke wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 11:16 I agree about Charles being better in a p4p sense, but Walcott being more impressive at the HWs. Walcott was more conclusive in their series and he was more impressive against Marciano despite being KOed twice. Walcott was winning their first fight wide, Charles wasn't that close to winning Rocky.

cfang wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 15:03 Wasn't Charles a round away from beating rocky In that second fight as he split his nose down the middle?

That's different. It was just a very bad cut, while the fight itself was far more even, that Walcott-Marciano I, where Walcott was totally outboxing Rocky.

I thought the first Walcott-Marciano fight was pretty close until the KO. Marciano certainly got his share of shots in.

Charles and Walcott are about as even as can be at heavyweight.

Charles was better. Not by a lot but he was better. I think his record against common opponents illustrates this as well.

Walcott was as cagey as they came. I'd pick him.

I really cannot choose between the two. Both of them have losses that modern day well managed fighters do not have to have. Both of them taking fights on short notice that, if they were making serious money, they wouldn’t have had to take.

Walcott is a special guy for me because, watching the Walcott Shuffle for the first time and seeing how someone could pull the guy they were fighting out of position, feinting, laying traps, was one of the first things that made boxing “click” for me mentally.

You mean you can learn techniques to outsmart someone your fighting so that you can land cleaner, more telling shots?!

That made my mind explode.

The Marciano cut in the Charles fight was from a freakish collision that Marciano had with Charles’ elbow, not from a punch.

klompton wrote: ↑21 May 2019, 18:36 Charles was better. Not by a lot but he was better. I think his record against common opponents illustrates this as well.

They fought a lot of similar opponents, but there records against them are very similar.
Charles did better against Louis, but Louis was not as good as when Walcott fought him.
Charles was 1-1 vs Layne, while Walcott was 0-1.
However Walcott beat Johnson, while Charles lost to him.
Charles was 1-1 vs Ray, while Walcott was 2-1.
They both beat several other common opponents.

They are about as close as you can get.

The final fight was considered a poor decision at the time. Most believed Charles won.

You may be a little biased towards Charles, Ezzard.
Btw, Primo Carnera was better than both of them.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 11:32 You may be a little biased towards Charles, Ezzard.
Btw, Primo Carnera was better than both of them.

I wonder if you're being sarcastic or being serious.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 10:49 They fought a lot of similar opponents, but there records against them are very similar.
Charles did better against Louis, but Louis was not as good as when Walcott fought him.
Charles was 1-1 vs Layne, while Walcott was 0-1.
However Walcott beat Johnson, while Charles lost to him.
Charles was 1-1 vs Ray, while Walcott was 2-1.
They both beat several other common opponents.

They are about as close as you can get.

Charles was 2-1 against Layne and the loss was considered a robbery. Walcott lost clearly to him.
Walcott beat Johnson when he was in his prime and Johnson was very green. Charles lost to him when he was fading and Johnson was in his prime.
Charles was 1-1 against Ray but again, the loss was controversial whereas Walcott was 2-1 but those decisions while close werent overly controversial.
Walcott also lost to Maxim who Charles owned and I would argue Charles performed better against Marciano as well.

Like I said, I dont know that he was a lot better than Walcott but I think he was better.

Not sure about all that. Johnson already had 30 fights and had just won a couple of fights against quality opponents. He had to be getting pretty close to his prime by the time Walcott stopped him.

Never saw the Layne-Charles fight, so I can't say much about that.

Never knew what to make of Charles' slump between fighting Walcott and Marciano. How far past it could he have been when Johnson beat him when you consider he gave a decent performance against Marciano?

Thought Walcott was more impressive than Charles was in either of his fights against Marciano. Obviously Walcott melted down in the rematch; I would call Marciano a wash as far as comparing Walcott and Charles.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 11:45 I wonder if you're being sarcastic or being serious.

I was just kidding.

P4P Charles was better based on his wins over Burley, Marshall and Moore; Ray Arcel raved about him. As heavyweights, they were very close. I recently read that Charles and Lamotta were signed to fight in 1943; I guess the draft nixed that one.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 13:55 Not sure about all that. Johnson already had 30 fights and had just won a couple of fights against quality opponents. He had to be getting pretty close to his prime by the time Walcott stopped him.

Never saw the Layne-Charles fight, so I can't say much about that.

Never knew what to make of Charles' slump between fighting Walcott and Marciano. How far past it could he have been when Johnson beat him when you consider he gave a decent performance against Marciano?

Thought Walcott was more impressive than Charles was in either of his fights against Marciano. Obviously Walcott melted down in the rematch; I would call Marciano a wash as far as comparing Walcott and Charles.

Johnson was only twenty-two when he lost to Walcott and had only started fighting "name" opponents the year before and every one of those three name opponents he had faced was on the downward slide. It would be another three years before Johnson really started to enter his prime and he continued to improve for years after that.

When Charles fought Marciano and to a greater degree Johnson, he was considered to be past his prime. That he gave a good account of himself against Marciano was both unexpected and a credit to his greatness. But he was 32 years old, fighting above his best/natural weight, had nearly 100 fights on his odometer and was coming off a loss less than a month earlier.

I guess we can keep quibbling about this forever. I just don't buy that Johnson was three years from his prime when Walcott Ko's him. Heck, it wasn't even two years later when he beat Moore. This is a guy who grew up in boxing. He had 30 fights already. Lytell and Bivins were still considered high quality fighters when Johnson beat them. He had given a decent account of himself in losing to Moore. He was already a ranked contender in a time when that meant something. Everything screams that Johnson was at least close to him prime when Walcott Ko'd him.

Walcott and Charles fought a lot of common opponents. And They each also beat Baski and Oma. Their results are very similar. We can go on and on about who was their primes and who wasn't, but it has to be pretty close. Their results are just too similar.

goose 5 wrote: ↑22 May 2019, 21:22 P4P Charles was better based on his wins over Burley, Marshall and Moore; Ray Arcel raved about him. As heavyweights, they were very close. I recently read that Charles and Lamotta were signed to fight in 1943; I guess the draft nixed that one.

Agreed. PFP, Charles was clearly better. As heavyweights only, it's very close.

DIdn't Johnson collapse with an injury in the Walcott bout? I don't think he went down from a punch .

Many of Charles's losses at heavyweight can be excused due to being past his prime. During what I would consider his prime years his only heavyweight losses were to Walcott and Elmer Ray with the Ray loss being controversial and decisively avenged.

I also think Charles is underrated at heavyweight these days, his accomplishments are arguably enough to put him in the lower top 10.

The ONLY REASON that I didn't place the great Ezzard Charles in the top 5 all time pound per pound list is because of the so many losses he had after losing to the great Jersey Joe Walcott the first time. It was like Charles was not as great after that. He was still competitive, but wasn't the same. Dome say he wasn't the same after the Sam Baroudi fight. He killed Baroudi.

I also read a post from Kalan (Remember him?) about that Charles by 1949 was suffering a disease. Was it the Lou Gehrig's Disease?

Kalan is so full of bullshit when it comes to that claim of having ALS since 1949.... He got that crock pot bit of nonsense from Burt Sugar who loved to tell stories rather than the truth.