BoxRec

Just to clarify with one poster here.......the walcott-maxim I decision was considered very poor.

The new york times scored the bout 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of walcott. So did the AP report.

"The Clevelander won a very unpopular decision last night"- New York Times


In the rematches, all the papers had walcott cleanly winning the 2nd and 3rd fights. it appears maxim brought out the worst in walcott, forcing walcott to go into his laid back counterpunching style using his waltz....it appeared the judges got sick of this style and counted points against walcott, but walcott controlled all 3 fights clearly. Walcott also floored granite chin joey maxim with a sharp right hand in one of the fights.



Ive heard one poster here claim walcott was inconsistent his whole career........I couldn't disagree more.


Take the years 1945-1947

During these 3 years Walcott defeated

Joe Baksi
Elmer Ray
Joey Maxim 2x
Tommy Gomez
Hatchetman Sheppard
Lee Oma
Jimmy Bivins
Lee Q Murray


Thats NINE victories in 3 years over top 10 ring magazine heavyweight contenders! now consider many of these men were some of the best most feared punchers of the era, and that makes things even more impressive willing to take the risks.

Lee Q Murray Elmer Ray and Jimmy Bivins were all rated in the top 3 by Ring Magazine when walcott defeated them.....meaning walcott essentially CLEANED OUT the heavyweight division in just 3 years to earn his shot at louis. Have you ever seen a heavyweight in just 3 years go through nearly the entire top 10 heavyweight list like walcott did? its safe to say there has not been many.


Walcotts record against Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders during 1945-1947?? An outstanding 9-1!!!! Inconsistency against the worlds best? I THINK NOT!

Walcott capped this amazing run in 3 years off with a career best performance to outbox outhustle outsmart outmanuever ATG heavyweight champion king joe louis knocking him down twice and winning around 10 out of the 15 rounds to win the championship, only for the lousy judges to steal the title away from him.



To me that run 1945-47 represents anything but inconsistency. It represents Courage, mental fortitude, and ability to perserve through a awe inspiring menacing schedule.



After the robbery and the come from behind brutal kayo louis, two heartbreaking losses.....was walcott finished? no

Walcott went on another run 1949-1951 Steamrolling through rated contenders knocking out hall of famer harold johnson, flashy omelio agramonte, .demolishing a paper touted feared big heavyweight ollie tandberg(who many refused to fight)..... giving undefeated 6'6 hoff a boxing lesson that was very impressive on film..... and capping it off with the famous charles knockout....now in between he did have the upset layne loss... I dont think that embarrasing after all if any of you guys read the articles of the era layne was consisered the youngest hottest heavyweight contender in the division full of piss and vinegar and heir to the throne...


So 1945-1947 9-1 against ring magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders up to the louis title fight


1949-1951 4 wins(3 by knockout) over Ring Magazine top 10.... two knockout wins against first ballot Hall of Famers



I dont think inconsistency defines walcott. I think Unbelievable Talent and Will to never give up through adversity defines Walcott.

Walcott's loss to Maxim was in 1946. Jersey Joe beat Maxim twice in 1947, both majority decisions.

That a newspaper newpaper thought Walcott should have got the decision, doesn't mean that he should have. Do you always agree with an AP report or what some sportswirter says? It was an unpopular decision? Where was the fight at? Camden New Jersey. Where was Walcott from? Camden New Jersey. Of course the decision was unpopular.
For Maxim to have won a decision against Walcott in Walcott's hometown, there is a pretty good chance that Maxim deserved it.

Yes, Walcott scored some big wins in his career. He also had some losses he shouldn't have had and some below par performances.
A consistently great fighter doesn't have very many of these bad losses/performances. A mediocre fighter had a lot of these and few of any big wins.
Walcott is obviously in the middle here. Beat some great and very good fighters, lost to some guys he should have beat. In some fights he was great, sometimes meduiocre, sometimes somewhere in between. He is a classic example of an inconsistent fighter.

Don't want to count his fights before 1945? (After all Walcott had to take fights on short notice, didn't have the best training etc. Just ignore the fact that you can probably say the same thing for most of his opponents.)
Even if you do that, he was just 23-10 from 1945-1953. This includes the loss to Maxim, as well as Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, and to the legendary Johnny Allen. Does a consistently great fighter really lose all of these fights?

For anyone who didn't read what I said earlier on another thread, here it is:
I agree that fighters from that era fought more frequently and sometimes at short notice. Of course it's understandable if under certain circumstances that you get upset occasionally by a fighter that is a level below you.
No arguement here about Vitaly Klitschko. He would have starved to death the way he pulls out of fights and usually fights very carefully chosen opponets when he does fight.

That being said, one point has to be made. You also have to look at the circumstances of Walcott's opponents that beat him. Take the guys mentioned:

Joey Maxim- Yes, Walcott had a fight 12 days before fighting him. However, Maxim had a fight 14 days before their fight. I don't see how that gives Maxim much of an advantage. Not an easy opponent, but Walcott should have been able to win this fight.

Roy Lazer-Yes, Walcott had a fight about a month before with Fox. However, a month isn't that short of time. Lazer himself just had a fight just 5 days before fighting Walcott. Walcott should have been able to win this fight.

George Brothers-Yes, Walcott had a fight just two weeks before their fight. However, Brothers also fought two weeks before their fight, on the same card as Walcott. Walcott should have been able to win this fight.

Johhny Allen-Yes, Walcott had a fight just two weeks prior to this. However, Allen had a fight just one week before that. and I don't think you can just assume that the fight was a fix or a bad decision. Walcott should have been able to win this fight easily.

Look at Walcott later in his career. Take the 4 fights with Charles. In the first two, he lost fairly convincingly. In the third fight, he was doing much better and was ahead before knocking out Charles.
In the fourth fight, he won a close decision; certainly a better performance than the first two fights with Charles.

And of course what about the Marciano fights? In the first one, he looked very good in the first 12 rounds before getting knocked out in the 13th.
In the rematch, he gave a very poor effort and was knocked out in the first round. He didn't even look like he was trying.

If it was just two or three fights, that would be one thing. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. However, we are talking about the early, middle, and late stages of his career. There is a pattern here.

By just about any measure he was inconsistent. The biggest winning streak of his career was 12 fights. Only one other time did he win 6 straight.

Maxim was a quality fighter. I haven't seen the fight so can't comment on the decision. BUT losing to Maxim doesn't make anyone a bad fighter.

Totally agree Alp, and if you were around 30 or more years ago, you'll probably remember that back then Jersey Joe was actually a bit underrated as a fighter. Now, in the 21st century, the trend has been reversed, and he's now overrated.

Plain and simple, he was a guy who had some impressive wins along with some unexplainable losses. He can be called a good fighter, but he just wasen't consistent enough to be called a great fighter.

I think one would have to delve into newspaper reports (if any exist) regarding the very odd losses to Lazar and Allen. I would not at all be surprised if like the Maxim fight Walcott clearly won but the other fighter was given the decision b/c Walcott was being too 'cutesy' . . similar to Emannuel Augustus today. Walcott beat a large number of excellent fighters as BB pointed out, I cannot fathom that a healthy Walcott lost a legit decision to those fighters.

Well I can fathom it. If it happened once, ok maybe a bad decision or just one bad night for Walcott. But we are talking about several times throughout his career.

Early in his career he supposedly lost because of bad trainers, taking fights on short notice etc. (Even though you could say the same thing for most of his opponents)

Then in the middle of career he lost to mediocre fighters supposedly because of bad decisions (even though we haven't actually seen these fights)

Late in his career he lost because he was fighting top opponents.

Just look at Walcott's fights with Charles and Marciano. Did he perform at about the same level in all 6 of those fights?
In the first two fights against Charles, he lost fairly convincingly. The judges all had Charles well ahead, and these fights aren't really disputed. However, in the 3rd fight against Charles, Walcott was ahead after 6 rounds and knocked out Charles in the 7th. In the 4th fight, he won a close decision (disputed by some) He was better than the first fight, but not as good as the 3rd.
It's understandable why some people would call Walcott a great fighter in the first Marciano fight. He did very well for 12 rounds. How about the 2nd fight?
Could he have looked much worse?

Walcott certainly had great performances-almost beat Louis and Marciano, beat Charles twice and some contenders. Obviously Waloctt did more in his career than the vast majority of fighters.

However, the bottom line is that if he was consistent, he would have fought like that almost all of the time and would have had a lot less losses. His career record was 51-18-2. 12 of those losses and both of his draws were to fighters that were not great heavyweights.

IMO Walcott was a great fighter. He had the better of the 1st fight with Louis. He clean KO'd Charles. He beat a string of top contenders...

It took him a while to find his stride, but once he found it he was a formidable opponent. His record shows that in his career as a whole he was inconsistent, but I think once he got his chance and became focused he was a top HW.

Ambling Alp wrote:Well I can fathom it. If it happened once, ok maybe a bad decision or just one bad night for Walcott. But we are talking about several times throughout his career.

Early in his career he supposedly lost because of bad trainers, taking fights on short notice etc. (Even though you could say the same thing for most of his opponents)

Then in the middle of career he lost to mediocre fighters supposedly because of bad decisions (even though we haven't actually seen these fights)

Late in his career he lost because he was fighting top opponents.

Just look at Walcott's fights with Charles and Marciano. Did he perform at about the same level in all 6 of those fights?
In the first two fights against Charles, he lost fairly convincingly. The judges all had Charles well ahead, and these fights aren't really disputed. However, in the 3rd fight against Charles, Walcott was ahead after 6 rounds and knocked out Charles in the 7th. In the 4th fight, he won a close decision (disputed by some) He was better than the first fight, but not as good as the 3rd.
It's understandable why some people would call Walcott a great fighter in the first Marciano fight. He did very well for 12 rounds. How about the 2nd fight?
Could he have looked much worse?

Walcott certainly had great performances-almost beat Louis and Marciano, beat Charles twice and some contenders. Obviously Waloctt did more in his career than the vast majority of fighters.

However, the bottom line is that if he was consistent, he would have fought like that almost all of the time and would have had a lot less losses. His career record was 51-18-2. 12 of those losses and both of his draws were to fighters that were not great heavyweights.

Augustus and Glen Johnson have been he victim of numerous bad decisions, it happens to fighters several times in many instances, especially fighters with a slick defensive 'cute' style like Walcott.

All of the Walcott-Charles fights were competetive. It's not like Charles dominated him twice (which is what your're inferring) and then he got knocked out in the rubber match.

So you are just going to assume that they were all bad decisions without actually seeing the fights? Does this go both ways? Is it possible that he got some decisions that he didn't deserve?

My rule of thumb is that without seeing a fight I go along with the judges. I think you have to. Only a very small fraction of the fights that have ever occurred are available on film (or could have been watched live). You can't just pick and choose which decisions you don't like when you haven't actaully seen the fight. You really have to have some strong evidence (Such as the unanimous agreement of a lot of witnesses that you can trust) to consider it a bad decision without seeing it yourself.

We are talking about 9 decisions here. (I'm not including the 1st Louis fight or the first two Charles fights.)

That seems like an awful lot of bad decisions going against him. (He also got knocked three times by less than great fighters.)

As for the Charles fight:
Well in the 2nd fight Walcott was dominated by Charles. It was pretty lopsided.
The first fight wasn't exactly close either.
However, in the 3rd fight Walcott was ahead annd scored a 7th round knockout. That is a much better result. The 4th fight, wasn't as good a performance as the 3rd, but certainly better than the first two.

In fact it's clear that vs Charles you can rank Walcott's performances in clear order.
3rd fight was his best, 4th fight was his 2nd, 1st fight was next, and the 2nd fight was his worst.
Yet another indication that he wasn't consistent.

Is the 2nd Marciano fight ever going to be addressed or is that taboo?

If nothing else, this question should be addressed:
Did Walcott almost always fight at about the level that he did in the first Louis fight, the 3rd Charles fight, the 1st Marciano fight?

Ambling Alp wrote:So you are just going to assume that they were all bad decisions without actually seeing the fights? Does this go both ways? Is it possible that he got some decisions that he didn't deserve?

My rule of thumb is that without seeing a fight I go along with the judges. I think you have to. Only a very small fraction of the fights that have ever occurred are available on film (or could have been watched live). You can't just pick and choose which decisions you don't like when you haven't actaully seen the fight. You really have to have some strong evidence (Such as the unanimous agreement of a lot of witnesses that you can trust) to consider it a bad decision without seeing it yourself.

We are talking about 9 decisions here. (I'm not including the 1st Louis fight or the first two Charles fights.)

That seems like an awful lot of bad decisions going against him. (He also got knocked three times by less than great fighters.)

As for the Charles fight:
Well in the 2nd fight Walcott was dominated by Charles. It was pretty lopsided.
The first fight wasn't exactly close either.
However, in the 3rd fight Walcott was ahead annd scored a 7th round knockout. That is a much better result. The 4th fight, wasn't as good a performance as the 3rd, but certainly better than the first two.

In fact it's clear that vs Charles you can rank Walcott's performances in clear order.
3rd fight was his best, 4th fight was his 2nd, 1st fight was next, and the 2nd fight was his worst.
Yet another indication that he wasn't consistent.

Is the 2nd Marciano fight ever going to be addressed or is that taboo?

If nothing else, this question should be addressed:
Did Walcott almost always fight at about the level that he did in the first Louis fight, the 3rd Charles fight, the 1st Marciano fight?

No, not all 9 other losses. Firstly, I consider Tiger Jack Fox, Elmer Ray, and Al Ettore (very early in Walcott's career) to have been excellent fighters and a loss to them does not tarnish a career. The Taylor loss was Joe's 7th career fight when he was still a light HW.

The ones I find suspicious/intriguing are the losses to Ketchel, Brothers, Lazar, and Allen. I don't think without any evidence one can 'assume' they were robberies flat out, but I think the probability that a majority if not all of those fights were 'likely' bad decisions, fixes, or like the Simon fight an example of a not-healthy Walcott taking a fight on late notice.

No fighter is always 100% consistent, but I can't rationally believe a fighter who beat (unofficially) Louis, Charles, Ray, Bivins, Maxim, Johnson, Murray, Sheppard etc. would, healthy, lose in a fight on the level to Johnny Allen and George Brothers.