BoxRec

In four outings, Walcott got ONE convincing victory over Charles. Charles decidedly outpointed him twice, and then, when he was 168 pounds, he signed to fight Walcott, and didn't take the fight lightly. Walcott is a one-hit-wonder! Charles won the rematch, but got screwed by the judges.

FACTS ARE FACTS walcott went 2-2 with charles . WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES TWICE!

walcott won the 4th charles fight. charles fought way too cautiously and coughed up the late rounds and walcott made a late round rally to rightfully retain his title. you have to take the title away from the champion and charles didnt do that



so as it stands


walcott 2-2 vs charles with 1 KO and 1 dec win

charles 2 dec



since walcott managed to score a knockout and charles didnt......walcott wins the series. walcott was the better heavyweight than charles




btw dec walcotts prime was 1945-52

Like Vitali Klitschko, Jersey Joe Walcott simply didn't win matches!

but walcott did. he won the linear title. he defended his title vs the # 1 contender succesfully. walcott also beat the VERY best contenders out there 1945-47 unlike vitali did pre title.



dec, this is one of ur weakest threads i have seen in a while. ur arguements are pathetic no offense

..i like walcott.....thought he made some wonderful moves against marciano...but when it comes to walcott/charles dec has it nailed. exactly. he's condensed the basic story but the facts are there.....and i've written them often on this forum and see no need to go into them again.


no way to take away the walcott kayo...the perfect punch at the perfect time. otherwise, charles was his superior...better fighter, better record.

Ezzard Charles went 1-0 against Joe Louis. Jersey Joe Walcott went 0-2 (1 KO loss) against Louis.

first of all, its almost the consensous that walcott won the first joe louis fight but was robbed. i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox. walcott beat joe louis in 1947, like lennox beat evander in the first fight.


2nd, walcott fought a MUCH better version of joe louis than ezzard charles did. its clear on film. joe louis aged dramatically after the walcott fights. louis was still a great fighter in 1946-48, but louis was no longer great in 1950. walcotts win over a 1947 joe louis is a better win than any heavyweight charles ever beat. how would have charles done had he fought the 1947-48 joe louis? he probably would have gone 1-1 as well(just like walcott unofficially did).

how would walcott have done vs the 1950 joe louis? he would have soundily beat louis, especially the rusty out of shape louis of the charles fight.

Charles went 5-0 against Joey Maxim. Walcott went 2-1 against Maxim.

yes ur right. no exuses. walcott didnt match up well vs maxim stylistically. walcott spent too much time dancing and doing cute moves and didnt spend enough time fighting. walcott would have done much better if he had been more aggresive and let his hands go more.

also for what its worth, new york times reported the first maxim-walcott fight as a "unpopular decision". so walcott-maxim series could have easily been 3-0 walcott.

Walcott went 1-0 against Jimmy Bivins. Charles went 3-1 against Bivins, with his sole loss coming when Charles was practically a middleweight.

yes but only one of those wins came against a prime bivins. the other 2 wins came when bivins was past his prime in 1948 and 1952.


walcott beat an absolute peak jimmy bivins. bivins was at his mental and physical peak. he was 26 years old and was on an absolute tear! he had not lost in 4 years and was the # 1 contender and was beating all the contenders in the division. Walcott knocked bivins down and clearly outpointed him( scorecards should have never been that close) putting a end to bivins huge run. it was WALCOTT, not charles, who ruined bivins 4 year unbeaten streak. this counts for something

Charles was past his prime when he met Walcott for a fourth time. In his prime, he easily handled Walcott.

charles didnt easily handle walcott. thats bullshit. walcott won the 4th charles fight. walcotts aggresion and charles caution in the late rounds won the fight for walcott. you have to take the title away from the champion.....charles didnt do that. charles gave the fight away in the late rounds. it was a very close decision, but no means a robbery. i thought walcott won.

walcott as it stands 2-2 vs charles with a knockout victory, something charles never managed to do.




walcott completley cleaned out the heavyweight division 1945-47 to unquestionably establish him the # 1 contender. walcott during this period beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders! walcotts run pre title was arguebably as good as anyones in history.

walcott beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders from 1945-47 like elmer ray, joey maxim, jimmy bivins, lee Q murray, hatchetman sheppard, joe baksi, lee oma, tommy gomez. walcott completley cleaned out the division pre title. charles never did anything like this.



if u take both fighters heavyweight win resumes...... i think walcott beat the better competition.


i also think due to styles, size, all around skill walcott matches up better vs the rest of the field in heavyweight head to head matchups. i think walcott at his absolute best was better than ezzard charles and does better head to head than charles does.



joe louis said walcott was better than charles

of course charles was unquestionably the better FIGHTER p4p than walcott.....charles is the greatest 175lb of all time and top 10 fighter of all time.

however i think walcott is the better heavyweight and matches up better head to head vs the rest of the field than charles does

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox.

I mean, no one really says Vitali went 0-1 with Byrd (or at least noone in his proper mind).

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox.

I mean, no one really says Vitali went 0-1 with Byrd (or at least noone in his proper mind).

theres a difference. vitali wasnt robbed. he QUIT ON HIS STOOL. he didnt finish the fight.


lennox FINISHED THE FIGHT, it was up to the judges and they robbed lennox

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:first of all, its almost the consensous that walcott won the first joe louis fight but was robbed. i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox. walcott beat joe louis in 1947, like lennox beat evander in the first fight.

WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!! The fact is that Jersey Joe Walcott never beat Joe Louis, and Ezzard Charles did!

ezzard beat a much worse version of joe louis than walcott faced.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox.

I mean, no one really says Vitali went 0-1 with Byrd (or at least noone in his proper mind).

theres a difference. vitali wasnt robbed. he QUIT ON HIS STOOL. he didnt finish the fight.


lennox FINISHED THE FIGHT, it was up to the judges and they robbed lennox

Irrelevant difference.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:first of all, its almost the consensous that walcott won the first joe louis fight but was robbed. i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox. walcott beat joe louis in 1947, like lennox beat evander in the first fight.

WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!! The fact is that Jersey Joe Walcott never beat Joe Louis, and Ezzard Charles did!

ezzard beat a much worse version of joe louis than walcott faced.

I rate Walcott but Charles was the better HW.

i think walcott was the better heavyweight and matches up better vs the rest of the field in head to head matchups. i think walcott at his peak was a better heavyweight than ezzard. i think walcott beat better heavyeight competition than charles did.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote: I mean, no one really says Vitali went 0-1 with Byrd (or at least noone in his proper mind).

theres a difference. vitali wasnt robbed. he QUIT ON HIS STOOL. he didnt finish the fight.


lennox FINISHED THE FIGHT, it was up to the judges and they robbed lennox

Irrelevant difference.

Illogical statement.

vitali went 0-1 vs bryd. it wasnt a robbery. vitali quit on his stool in a championship fight with 2 rounds to go when well ahead on the scorecards. bryd scored a legit win. vitali hut his shoulder because bryd made him miss. then when bryd poured on the pressure in the late rounds vitali couldnt handle it and quit. no robbery. it was an uncontroversial win.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:vitali went 0-1 vs bryd. it wasnt a robbery. vitali quit on his stool in a championship fight with 2 rounds to go when well ahead on the scorecards. bryd scored a legit win. vitali hut his shoulder because bryd made him miss. then when bryd poured on the pressure in the late rounds vitali couldnt handle it and quit. no robbery. it was an uncontroversial win.

I didn't say it was a robbery. But the way Vitali "lost" to Byrd ought to be relevant for how he is assessed as a fighter; as the way Lewis drew with Holyfield ought to be relevant for his assessment.

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i mean, no one really says evander went 0-1-1 with lennox.

I mean, no one really says Vitali went 0-1 with Byrd (or at least noone in his proper mind).

Um, Vitali did go 0-1 against Byrd. There was nothing controversial at all in him quitting. He injured himself missing Byrd, just as Evander Holyfield, DaVaryll Williamson and other fighters did. Do people claim that Sonny Liston was 1-1 with Cassius Clay since he got injured in the first bout? Do people claim that Duran was 2-1 against Leonard or 2-0 against Pat Lawlor? Do people claim that Buster Douglas didn't lose to Mike "the Giant" White? NO! If you quit, it doesn't matter how many rounds you've won.

Liston and Duran were losing when they quit, while Vitali was cruising to an easy win.

Of course this matters.

Decagon wrote:What about the Lawlor fight? Duran was winning when he quit. Mike Tyson was ahead of Kevin McBride when he quit. Does that mean he didn't really lose?!?!?!

Tyson was losing. I don't know about the other fight.

I've been excruciatingly patient with you so far, buddy, but enough is enough. I've aother things to do than playing your nanny teaching you how to tie your shoelaces. The basic point is really simple: a severaly injured Vitali Klitschko outboxed Chris Byrd with only one arm for 9 long rounds.

Which implies by necessity: Vitali Klitschko is not only better than Byrdie; he is head and shoulders above him. Even though in the book records it says TKO 10.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think walcott was the better heavyweight and matches up better vs the rest of the field in head to head matchups. i think walcott at his peak was a better heavyweight than ezzard. i think walcott beat better heavyeight competition than charles did.

I dont see how you can say that in all seriousness... just a look at Charles record shows that he was the better fighter and the better heavyweight than Walcott... Charles was most likely already in the early stages of his terminal illness when he lost to Walcott and indeed Marciano... at his best Charles beats Walcott every time...

pundit wrote:

Decagon wrote:What about the Lawlor fight? Duran was winning when he quit. Mike Tyson was ahead of Kevin McBride when he quit. Does that mean he didn't really lose?!?!?!

Tyson was losing. I don't know about the other fight.

I've been excruciatingly patient with you so far, buddy, but enough is enough. I've aother things to do than playing your nanny teaching you how to tie your shoelaces. The basic point is really simple: a severaly injured Vitali Klitschko outboxed Chris Byrd with only one arm for 9 long rounds.

Which implies by necessity: Vitali Klitschko is not only better than Byrdie; he is head and shoulders above him. Even though in the book records it says TKO 10.

Indeed!... save us from these kids that dont know the difference from a out and out quitter (Tyson) and a guy who is stopped because he has a serious injury... (Klitchenko) ...Christ! it shouldnt take a genius to see the difference!...

pundit wrote:Which implies by necessity: Vitali Klitschko is not only better than Byrdie; he is head and shoulders above him. Even though in the book records it says TKO 10.

Hmmm, illogical and delusional.

Well Byrds nuts must be so far down your throat that their coming out of your ears son!... 8)

I dont see how you can say that in all seriousness...

its not like ezzard charles was a muhammad ali @ heavyweight. charles went 2-2 with jersey joe walcott.

. just a look at Charles record shows that he was the better fighter and the better heavyweight than Walcott...

better fighter? yes


better heavyweight? NO



walcott beat better heavweight opposition than charles did



charles heavyweight wins

elmer ray
jersey joe walcott 2x
old joe louis
coley wallace
rex layne 2x
joe baksi
jimmy bivins- 3x
bob satterfield
cesar brion
johnny haynes



walcotts heavyweight wins


1947 joe louis
ezzard charles 2x
lee Q murray
jimmy bivins
elmer ray 2x
harold johnson
joe baksi
Tommy Gomez
Hatchetman Sheppard
Lee Oma
willie reddish
lorenzo pack
omelio agramonte
hein ten hoff







charles heavyweight title reign was filled with some awful fighters. outside of louis and walcott, none of those other 6 guys deserved shots at the title. there were much more dangerous contenders out there like rocky marciano, roland lastarza, bob baker, clarence henry, rex layne, gene tiger jones, sid peaks, archie moore, jimmy bivins, etc that deserved title shots over some of those complete scrubs that charles gave title shots too 49-51


walcott's cleaning out the heavyweight division 1945-47 where he beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders is far more impressive than charles title reign.



charles title reign(exluding louis and walcott)



freddie beshore- a tough journeyman who had no business getting a title shot. he was a C level fighter and nowhere near a world beater or a ranked contender

replace: Rex Layne

pat valentino- valentino was blind in one eye and was at the tail end of his career. he was nowhere near one of the most dangerous heavyweights out there

replace: sid peaks


nick barone- a good lightheavweight who had no business getting a title shot at heavyweight title. he was simply an average heavweight, nowhere near a ranked contender

replace: bob baker


joey maxim- why not defend his title vs archie moore instead? at least moore was making noise in the heavyweight title. charles may have already beaten moore 3 times, but he had already beaten maxim 3 times too when he gave joey a shot at the title.

replace: archie moore


gus lesnevich- a old washed up lightheavyweight who was at the end of his career and had NEVER done anything as a heavyweight. he had no business getting a title shot.

replace: Rocky Marciano(rocky would probably win though)


lee oma- oma was a 35 year old washed up heavyweight. he looked awful on film vs charles, his reflexes had detiorated and he looked fat and hairy. oma had no business getting the title shot.


replace: clarence henry

Charles was most likely already in the early stages of his terminal illness when he lost to Walcott and indeed Marciano

this is BULLSHIT. charles disease is a very bad one. when you get it, you have at MOST 5 years to live, and after 5 years the odds are very very little to none that you will survive. every year that you survive after 5 years, the odds are incredibly low that you will make it. charles was diagnosed in 1966 and died in 1971 making my above statement accurate.


silk, you expect us to believe charles body defied logic and facts and managed to last 20 years with the diagnosis???


charles was near his prime in 1951. he had just beaten jersey joe walcott in a wide decision for crying out loud. its just walcott finally fought the perfect game plan and beat charles the 3rd time around.


how dare u take away marciano and walcotts victories over charles and say they beat a man with a disease when facts prove its impossible that charles had the disease that early.

... at his best Charles beats Walcott every time

disagree. walcott at his very best beats charles every time. walcott was simply the better heavyweight. walcott of the first joe louis fight beats charles. joe louis said walcott was better than charles.




i think walcott due to his size, style, matches up better against the rest of the heavyweights head to head than charles does

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcotts heavyweight wins


1947 joe louis

WOULDA, SHOULDA, COULDA!!!

ok then,


evander holyfield drew with a prime lennox lewis

..brockton buddy...dammit.....get back to your school studies and getting ins shape for wresting. try not to let the fact that charles was a better heavyweight than walcott sink into your subconcious and mess with your concentration!!!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I dont see how you can say that in all seriousness...

its not like ezzard charles was a muhammad ali @ heavyweight. charles went 2-2 with jersey joe walcott.

. just a look at Charles record shows that he was the better fighter and the better heavyweight than Walcott...

better fighter? yes


better heavyweight? NO



walcott beat better heavweight opposition than charles did



charles heavyweight wins

elmer ray
jersey joe walcott 2x
old joe louis
coley wallace
rex layne 2x
joe baksi
jimmy bivins- 3x
bob satterfield
cesar brion
johnny haynes



walcotts heavyweight wins


1947 joe louis
ezzard charles 2x
lee Q murray
jimmy bivins
elmer ray 2x
harold johnson
joe baksi
Tommy Gomez
Hatchetman Sheppard
Lee Oma
willie reddish
lorenzo pack
omelio agramonte
hein ten hoff







charles heavyweight title reign was filled with some awful fighters. outside of louis and walcott, none of those other 6 guys deserved shots at the title. there were much more dangerous contenders out there like rocky marciano, roland lastarza, bob baker, clarence henry, rex layne, gene tiger jones, sid peaks, archie moore, jimmy bivins, etc that deserved title shots over some of those complete scrubs that charles gave title shots too 49-51


walcott's cleaning out the heavyweight division 1945-47 where he beat 8 top 10 ranked contenders is far more impressive than charles title reign.



charles title reign(exluding louis and walcott)



freddie beshore- a tough journeyman who had no business getting a title shot. he was a C level fighter and nowhere near a world beater or a ranked contender

replace: Rex Layne

pat valentino- valentino was blind in one eye and was at the tail end of his career. he was nowhere near one of the most dangerous heavyweights out there

replace: sid peaks


nick barone- a good lightheavweight who had no business getting a title shot at heavyweight title. he was simply an average heavweight, nowhere near a ranked contender

replace: bob baker


joey maxim- why not defend his title vs archie moore instead? at least moore was making noise in the heavyweight title. charles may have already beaten moore 3 times, but he had already beaten maxim 3 times too when he gave joey a shot at the title.

replace: archie moore


gus lesnevich- a old washed up lightheavyweight who was at the end of his career and had NEVER done anything as a heavyweight. he had no business getting a title shot.

replace: Rocky Marciano(rocky would probably win though)


lee oma- oma was a 35 year old washed up heavyweight. he looked awful on film vs charles, his reflexes had detiorated and he looked fat and hairy. oma had no business getting the title shot.


replace: clarence henry

This proves nothing. In your opinion Walcott had better competition at HW. Even if I were to agree you'd have to admit that it's not by much though, is it? Many think Charles won the 4th fight too.