very very good fighter, robbed against louis in '47 and had an epic rivalry with charles, heavyweight champ at age 37

i can see how he paved the way for guys like toney and floyd with his nice rolling defence and accurate countershots, hes definitely underrated

ezzard charles was a superb fighter also....

i highly recommend watching some walcott if you are a toney or floyd fan, toney himself has said he learnt a lot watching jersey joe

Walcott was definitely a very capable boxer with wins over many great names.

Jersey Joe came very close to having wins over Louis and Marciano, I can only imagine how high he would be ranked now if he had managed to beat them both.

A compilation of his fights against Louis, Charles and Marciano:

<div><object width="480" height="381"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k53QpMnUDR33vXLZD6&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k53QpMnUDR33vXLZD6&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="381" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t5v8_jersey-joe-walcott_sport">Jersey Joe Walcott</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>

Jersey Joe Walcott (Real Name Arnold Raymond Cream) was a great defensive fighter, who Hall Of Famer Pernell ''Sweet Pea'' Whitaker said was his favourite fighter and learned so much from Walcott.

Born 1914-01-31, Walcott started his career out in 1930, with a KO win over Cowboy Frank Willis. After shining shoes in his teens years, he turned to boxing as a way out and to feed his family.

Walcott had a hard patchy start, taking fights on short notice when ever he could to ear a buck etc. But a interesting story is that Jackie Blackburn as you may know him as the trainer of the great ''Joe Louis'' trained Walcott for a brief period before taking on Louis, things were going pretty well until Walcott fell sick and was out for a while and when he returned, Blackburn had-was training a young and hungry Joe Louis.

This would lead to then Blackburn having Louis and Walcott spar, in which Walcott would manhandle Louis and even decking him, this this would lead to Walcott being kicked out the camp.

After this more losses followed, and then luck would strike as a managment team, picked up Joe and let him train properly for fights etc.

This would then lead to title shots the first one being against Joe Louis were he was robbed blind of his title but Walcott would not give up on his dream.

After being TKO'd in 11 in the rematch by Louis, Walcott would then get another 2 title shots losing both to the great Ezzard Charles.

And then finally on 1951-07-18 at Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States he would KO Ezzard Charles for the heavyweight championship of the world with a peach of a uppercut. the fight would be named 1951 Fight of the Year - Ring Magazine.

He would make another defencse against Charles before meeting unbeaten Rocky Marciano in a fight in which he had dropped Marciano and was leading on all the scorecards going into the 13th, before being knocked out cold with a brutal blow. He would go on to get KO'D in the 1st in the rematch and the retire.

.Held wins over Jimmy Bivins,Joey Maximx2,Elmer Ray,Ezzard Charlesx2 and Harold Johnson.

.Gave himself name of Jersey Joe Walcott, due to that he wanted to be more reconisged, so called him after his Farther's Favourite fighter the great Orginal Joe Walcott.

.Most early losess due to taking fights on short notice, needing money to feed his family.

.If luck may have been on his side he may have held wins over Louis and Marcaino.

After his boxing career he worked as a referee, his most famous assignment being the controversial Muhammad Ali-Sonny Liston rematch in Lewiston, Maine.

He also was the head of the New Jersey State Boxing Commission during the 1970s and 1980s.

Death Date-1994-02-25

Birthplace: Merchantville, NJ
Hometown: Camden, New Jersey, USA

Officail Record-won 51 (KO 32) + lost 18 (KO 6) + drawn 2 = 71

.Ranked number 66th hardest puncher of all time in the Ring 100 greatest pucnhers list, ahead of the likes of Ingemar Johansson, and Buddy Baer.

.Bert Sugar ranked number 79 in his 100th greatest fighters list above the likes of Aaron Pryor, Mike Tyson, Roy Jones Jr. ,James J.Jeffries, Salvador Sanchez, Bernard Hopkins and Wilfredo Gomez.

Stance- Orthodox
height 6′ 0″ / 183cm
reach 74“ / 188cm
rounds boxed 475 : KO% 45.07

As Walcott once said ''I don't copy moves I invent them''

Toney always gives Walcott and Charles the highest respect, he sees them as his predecessors.

Jersey Joe came very close to having wins over Louis and Marciano, I can only imagine how high he would be ranked now if he had managed to beat them both.


Take the politics out of the game, and he wins both fights.

Take the politics out of the game, and he wins both fights.

I don't don't think politics had much to do with that blistering shot Marciano gave him in Walcott-Marciano I.

I don't don't think politics had much to do with that blistering shot Marciano gave him in Walcott-Marciano I.

It's a hard pill to swallow that politics had as much to do with winning a fight as having skills itself, at least that's how it was back then. Joe Louis may never have been champion if he didn't mold his "character" in a certain way. Plenty of fighters never became champion or fought in a championship due to politics, plain and simple.

Walcott was a great boxer, his style really was ahead of his time, Hopkins is also a fighter who uses quite a few of Jersy Joe's moves in the ring, the left hook he nailed Charles with in their third fight was one of the best I've seen and he definitely deserved the decision over Louis in their first fight, it's one of the worst robberies of all time from my perspective.

Walcott was a great boxer, his style really was ahead of his time, Hopkins is also a fighter who uses quite a few of Jersy Joe's moves in the ring, the left hook he nailed Charles with in their third fight was one of the best I've seen and he definitely deserved the decision over Louis in their first fight, it's one of the worst robberies of all time from my perspective.



yeah that robbery vs louis is awful

another thing i noticed about jersey joe was his physical strength, he often pushed opponents around in the clinches, seemed to pack a pretty heavy punch and had a very developed physique, especially considering he didnt have access to supplements and what not

combined with his skills that made a hell of a fighter

yeah that robbery vs louis is awful

another thing i noticed about jersey joe was his physical strength, he often pushed opponents around in the clinches, seemed to pack a pretty heavy punch and had a very developed physique, especially considering he didnt have access to supplements and what not

combined with his skills that made a hell of a fighter

Walcott wasn't the biggest heavyweight around but he definitely wasn't small, and as you said, was well build, he managed to outmuscle a lot of his opponents on the inside, he knew how to maneuver them.

One of the smartest fighters ever to lace up the gloves. Always had a plan going in as to how to beat an opponent and the tools the to carry out th plan. Bernard Hopkins developed his own style in part by watching film of Walcott. Fought malnourished and on short notice early in his career just to make enough money to eat with.

Be careful, there are some rabid Walcott haters on this forum.

Poet

it's one of the worst robberies of all time from my perspective.

I'd say that's hardly the case, although Walcott did likely deserve to win the decision in a fight that was considered much closer (under the round scoring in effect for the fight) in it's immediate aftermath than what time has exaggerated it to be in today's age.

I'd say that's hardly the case, although Walcott did likely deserve to win the decision in a fight that was considered much closer (under the round scoring in effect for the fight) in it's immediate aftermath than what time has exaggerated it to be in today's age.

I don't know about that but you're more of an historian than I am so I'll take your word for it, looking at the fight, I thought Walcott won comfortably even though he took some of the later rounds off, the referee did, the crowd did, I think even Louis did. As I said though, I'll take your word for it.

I don't know about that but you're more of an historian than I am so I'll take your word for it, looking at the fight, I thought Walcott won comfortably even though he took some of the later rounds off, the referee did, the crowd did, I think even Louis did. As I said though, I'll take your word for it.

Most of the press reporters covering the fight were along the lines of Goldstein's 7-6-2 card for Walcott, like the United Press (7-6-2 for Walcott), the Indepedant News Service (8-7 for Walcott), etc., etc., and that seemed to be the prevailing opinion after the fight as far as ringside viewers went...A select few thought Louis edged it in a close one, but the majority of press row thought Walcott took it, albeit by no more than a round or two at the most from what I've seen. Even a few that scored it for Walcott expressed that they would have felt bad if the decision went against Louis based on the margin of victory for Walcott not being clear enough to take his title.

Walcott himself, along with his manager, also didn't think the margin of victory was all that big judging by his "I thought I had won nine rounds" comments immediately after the fight. Under the scoring used and if we gave Walcott the benefit of the doubt with what he said, nine rounds to six is still a pretty close fight, and you and I have both seen seemingly larger margins of victory taken away by the judges on many occasions, I'm sure.

The crowd? Yeah, they didn't like the decision much, but when I watched that fight last, I thought it was pretty obvious where their rooting interest lied throughout the fight, as they constantly cheered for Walcott throughout. Whether it be his hometown's proximity to New York, or whether they were just behind the underdog who was showing himself so well, the majority seemed to be behind everything Walcott did, so I'd take their boo'ing of the decision with a grain of salt.

Louis did say and did things that made it appear that he thought he may have lost, I'll give you that. He tried to say that his apology to Walcott was taken out of context when asked about it in the postfight, but I don't know...He also said that he only left the ring only because "I fought so lousy that I was embarrassed and just wanted to get out of sight" and not because he thought he lost, but again, I'm not convinced that that was only the case. Whether it be what his manager was saying to him ("you need a knockout, Joe" or whatever), or whether it be what he felt in his own heart, I think it's likely that Louis felt he didn't do enough to get the win after the final bell sounded.

Still, whatever margin Walcott seemed to have had in the fight wouldn't have been enough for consideration as "one of the worst robberies of all time" classification, in my opinion, as well as practically everybody else who saw the fight back in the day when it happened. Save for maybe Walcott and his corner, nobody thought the fight was a "robbery" (or similiar wording) back then.

Most of the press reporters covering the fight were along the lines of Goldstein's 7-6-2 card for Walcott, like the United Press (7-6-2 for Walcott), the Indepedant News Service (8-7 for Walcott), etc., etc., and that seemed to be the prevailing opinion after the fight as far as ringside viewers went...A select few thought Louis edged it in a close one, but the majority of press row thought Walcott took it, albeit by no more than a round or two at the most from what I've seen. Even a few that scored it for Walcott expressed that they would have felt bad if the decision went against Louis based on the margin of victory for Walcott not being clear enough to take his title.

Walcott himself, along with his manager, also didn't think the margin of victory was all that big judging by his "I thought I had won nine rounds" comments immediately after the fight. Under the scoring used and if we gave Walcott the benefit of the doubt with what he said, nine rounds to six is still a pretty close fight, and you and I have both seen seemingly larger margins of victory taken away by the judges on many occasions, I'm sure.

The crowd? Yeah, they didn't like the decision much, but when I watched that fight last, I thought it was pretty obvious where their rooting interest lied throughout the fight, as they constantly cheered for Walcott throughout. Whether it be his hometown's proximity to New York, or whether they were just behind the underdog who was showing himself so well, the majority seemed to be behind everything Walcott did, so I'd take their boo'ing of the decision with a grain of salt.

Louis did say and did things that made it appear that he thought he may have lost, I'll give you that. He tried to say that his apology to Walcott was taken out of context when asked about it in the postfight, but I don't know...He also said that he only left the ring only because "I fought so lousy that I was embarrassed and just wanted to get out of sight" and not because he thought he lost, but again, I'm not convinced that that was only the case. Whether it be what his manager was saying to him ("you need a knockout, Joe" or whatever), or whether it be what he felt in his own heart, I think it's likely that Louis felt he didn't do enough to get the win after the final bell sounded.

Still, whatever margin Walcott seemed to have had in the fight wouldn't have been enough for consideration as "one of the worst robberies of all time" classification, in my opinion, as well as practically everybody else who saw the fight back in the day when it happened. Save for maybe Walcott and his corner, nobody thought the fight was a "robbery" (or similiar wording) back then.

The reason I call it one of the biggest robberies of all time wasn't just because of the scoring, I've seen worse robberies from a scoring standpoint, but it was also because of the occasion of the fight, it was for the heavyweight championship of the world which was, as you know, a very big thing back then, even though it wasn't Louis' biggest fight, it was still a very big thing.

Scoring wise, I've definitely seen worse, like the Whitaker-Ramirez 1 fight.

The reason I call it one of the biggest robberies of all time wasn't just because of the scoring, I've seen worse robberies from a scoring standpoint, but it was also because of the occasion of the fight, it was for the heavyweight championship of the world which was, as you know, a very big thing back then, even though it wasn't Louis' biggest fight, it was still a very big thing.

Well, we've had a few heavyweight championship fights throughout history that were deemed controversial with the majority of those viewing the decision thinking that it should have gone the other way...Sharkey-Schmeling II (might be the most controversial for this category, as I've never seen one press clipping saying that Sharkey deserved it...most press scorers had it in the 9-6, 10-5 range for Schmeling), Holmes-Spinks II, Ali-Young, Ali-Norton III, Briggs-Foreman, etc., and even Walcott himself might have benefitted in another fight that most ringside observers thought should have gone the other way when he faced Ezzard Charles in their June of 1952 meeting. That fourth Walcott-Charles meeting and the decision rendered in it by the officials was by no means popular with the fans who boo'd the decision, and even the majority (by a margin of 21 to 16) press row writers thought Charles had did enough to regain the title in a close and slow paced fight. For a couple of examples, the Associated Press scored it 7-6-2 for Charles, while the United Press had it for him at 9-5-1.

There's been more than a handful of highly controversial decisions throughout heavyweight championship history, and Louis-Walcott was just another one of the bunch.

http://i35.tinypic.com/fxdx6h.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/2a8izio.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/2ep4kzl.jpg

http://i34.tinypic.com/alkx0h.jpg

It seems like a robbery today but back then the decision usually went for the more aggressive fighter, not the "runner" (who used movement, defense and counter punching to frustrate the aggressor). Especially when the aggressor was the one holding the belt ("you've got to take the title from the champion").

Taking a look at the fight now, yes it's very clear that Walcott won the bout (to me atleast), but if we were to score rounds for the aggressor (not necessarily the effective one), then the fight would be significantly closer.

Well, we've had a few heavyweight championship fights throughout history that were deemed controversial with the majority of those viewing the decision thinking that it should have gone the other way...Sharkey-Schmeling II (might be the most controversial for this category, as I've never seen one press clipping saying that Sharkey deserved it...most press scorers had it in the 9-6, 10-5 range for Schmeling), Holmes-Spinks II, Ali-Young, Ali-Norton III, Briggs-Foreman, etc., and even Walcott himself might have benefitted in another fight that most ringside observers thought should have gone the other way when he faced Ezzard Charles in their June of 1952 meeting. That fourth Walcott-Charles meeting and the decision rendered in it by the officials was by no means popular with the fans who boo'd the decision, and even the majority (by a margin of 21 to 16) press row writers thought Charles had did enough to regain the title in a close and slow paced fight. For a couple of examples, the Associated Press scored it 7-6-2 for Charles, while the United Press had it for him at 9-5-1.

There's been more than a handful of highly controversial decisions throughout heavyweight championship history, and Louis-Walcott was just another one of the bunch.

I understand what you're saying, and those fights were controversial fights but I don't think they were as big as Louis-Walcott 1 but I can definitely understand what you're saying.

On a side note, Young's tactics against Ali was incredibly irritating, sticking his head outside the ropes almost everytime Ali got something going was very irritating and I'm pretty sure illegal.

I understand what you're saying, and those fights were controversial fights but I don't think they were as big as Louis-Walcott 1 but I can definitely understand what you're saying.

On a side note, Young's tactics against Ali was incredibly irritating, sticking his head outside the ropes almost everytime Ali got something going was very irritating and I'm pretty sure illegal.

Going into it, the first Louis-Walcott fight wasn't considered all that big as far as heavyweight championship fights go, as I'm sure you do remember that it was originally slated to be only a ten round exhibition bout for charity before the NYSAC came in and said that all fights that a champion takes part in over six scheduled rounds are considered title fights. Thus it was changed to the 15 round limit. And remember this was an indoor fight at Madison Square Garden, as opposed to the big money heavyweight fights which almost always took part in an outdoor venue like Yankee Stadium for gate reciepts purposes.

As a 10 to 1 underdog, nobody gave Walcott much of a chance going in, and in fact, it was even money that Louis would get rid of him before five rounds were up.

It's been made famous after the fact because of Walcott's performance and the decision in it, but going into it, it was far from being considered a "big" fight as far as heavyweight title fights go.

Going into it, the first Louis-Walcott fight wasn't considered all that big as far as heavyweight championship fights go, as I'm sure you do remember that it was originally slated to be only a ten round exhibition bout for charity before the NYSAC came in and said that all fights that a champion takes part in over six scheduled rounds are considered title fights. Thus it was changed to the 15 round limit. And remember this was an indoor fight at Madison Square Garden, as opposed to the big money heavyweight fights which almost always took part in an outdoor venue like Yankee Stadium for gate reciepts purposes.

As a 10 to 1 underdog, nobody gave Walcott much of a chance going in, and in fact, it was even money that Louis would get rid of him before five rounds were up.

It's been made famous after the fact because of Walcott's performance and the decision in it, but going into it, it was far from being considered a "big" fight as far as heavyweight title fights go.

You've convinced me Yogi, much respect.

<object width="450" height="337"><param name="movie" value="http://www.megavideo.com/v/FN4RQ734357319b58ecf7dc8a6abd0d49477b40f"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.megavideo.com/v/FN4RQ734357319b58ecf7dc8a6abd0d49477b40f" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="450" height="337"></embed></object>

<object width="450" height="337"><param name="movie" value="http://www.megavideo.com/v/JJMOUHHG2a4736b10242924a9dd491ec6895dfa3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.megavideo.com/v/JJMOUHHG2a4736b10242924a9dd491ec6895dfa3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="450" height="337"></embed></object>

<object width="450" height="337"><param name="movie" value="http://www.megavideo.com/v/KPD5HWIG45b4fafcc66386fd81afff8744d63c7e"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.megavideo.com/v/KPD5HWIG45b4fafcc66386fd81afff8744d63c7e" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="450" height="337"></embed></object>

On a side note, Young's tactics against Ali was incredibly irritating, sticking his head outside the ropes almost everytime Ali got something going was very irritating and I'm pretty sure illegal.

** Interesting that you used Ali as an example as a "side note" to bolster your argument that Walcott was robbed.

Difference between Ali and Louis is Louis only has a couple of controversies and settled things with timely rematches. Walcott got an immediate rematch and all the judges, the ref, and the judges were on notice. Go check out the result.

Most in the day accept that Young not only easily beat Ali, but he outclowned the clown as well. He only ducks under the ropes a few time, about as many times as Ali ropadopes, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal to adjust the ropes to looseness and then stick your head 2' outside the natural perimeter of the ring to paraphrase you.

Ali benefits from every single one of many controversies throughout his career, so you need find a better example to bolster your hyperventilating claim of robbery which is thrown out after every decision these days. Casual fans don't know the first thing about how boxing is scored on top of the monthly outrages like the Cintron/Martinez result last week were nobody in the ring knows whats going on for 3 min in the middle of the fight.

DKing made a fortune on robberies, but getting back to topic, Walcott was a fine tricky journeyman type fighter who proves his mettle in a classic series with Charles, Louis, and Rocky. No matter the opinions of muddled moderns, it was one of the most storied eras in history, but you have to accept on boxing forums that some may disagree.

Walcott damaged his reputation with his botch of the Liston/Clay rematch and I seem to recall a nasty patch of NJ politics when he was athletic director but in general he's still remembered fondly. Ibro ranks him 16th alltime which is pretty good considering the competition. A classic American example of grit and perseverance. He actually first makes his name with the Louis "robbery."

No better class of fighter to get "robbed" against than Joe Louis my friend and I imagine JJ knew it.

** Interesting that you used Ali as an example as a "side note" to bolster your argument that Walcott was robbed.

Difference between Ali and Louis is Louis only has a couple of controversies and settled things with timely rematches. Walcott got an immediate rematch and all the judges, the ref, and the judges were on notice. Go check out the result.

Most in the day accept that Young not only easily beat Ali, but he outclowned the clown as well. He only ducks under the ropes a few time, about as many times as Ali ropadopes, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal to adjust the ropes to looseness and then stick your head 2' outside the natural perimeter of the ring to paraphrase you.

Ali benefits from every single one of many controversies throughout his career, so you need find a better example to bolster your hyperventilating claim of robbery which is thrown out after every decision these days. Casual fans don't know the first thing about how boxing is scored on top of the monthly outrages like the Cintron/Martinez result last week were nobody in the ring knows whats going on for 3 min in the middle of the fight.

DKing made a fortune on robberies, but getting back to topic, Walcott was a fine tricky journeyman type fighter who proves his mettle in a classic series with Charles, Louis, and Rocky. No matter the opinions of muddled moderns, it was one of the most storied eras in history, but you have to accept on boxing forums that some may disagree.

Walcott damaged his reputation with his botch of the Liston/Clay rematch and I seem to recall a nasty patch of NJ politics when he was athletic director but in general he's still remembered fondly. Ibro ranks him 16th alltime which is pretty good considering the competition. A classic American example of grit and perseverance. He actually first makes his name with the Louis "robbery."

No better class of fighter to get "robbed" against than Joe Louis my friend and I imagine JJ knew it.

That wasn't my intention at all, I was just pointing out that Young's tactics in my opinion were irritating and illegal. I never said Ali won that fight.

And I don't cry robbery after every decision, maybe you should check out my posts more often, in fact I don't cry robbery over many fights at all.

Take the politics out of the game, and he wins both fights.

Joe Louis probaly, but politics had nothing to do with his loss to the Rock!

very very good fighter, robbed against louis in '47 and had an epic rivalry with charles, heavyweight champ at age 37

i can see how he paved the way for guys like toney and floyd with his nice rolling defence and accurate countershots, hes definitely underrated

ezzard charles was a superb fighter also....

i highly recommend watching some walcott if you are a toney or floyd fan, toney himself has said he learnt a lot watching jersey joe


Underrated? You mean overrated just to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody. Louis was past his prime when Walcott fought him even though Walcott was probably past his best too. Walcott lost 15 or so times in his career and was knocked out 6 or 7 times which means he had a glass chin ( I seen people say Shannon Briggs a guy who was knocked out only twice had a glass chin, Norton only 3 times, Michael Moorer and Tommy Morrison 3 times so the last time i checked 6 is more than 3 or 2 so Walcott had a horrible chin then.) Noting was special about Walcott and if he never faced Marciano nobody would be talking about him to build up the level of opponents Marciano fought.

very very good fighter, robbed against louis in '47 and had an epic rivalry with charles, heavyweight champ at age 37

i can see how he paved the way for guys like toney and floyd with his nice rolling defence and accurate countershots, hes definitely underrated

ezzard charles was a superb fighter also....

i highly recommend watching some walcott if you are a toney or floyd fan, toney himself has said he learnt a lot watching jersey joe


Underrated? You mean overrated just to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody. Louis was past his prime when Walcott fought him even though Walcott was probably past his best too. Walcott lost 15 or so times in his career and was knocked out 6 or 7 times which means he had a glass chin ( I seen people say Shannon Briggs a guy who was knocked out only twice had a glass chin, Norton only 3 times, Michael Moorer and Tommy Morrison 3 times so the last time i checked 6 is more than 3 or 2 so Walcott had a horrible chin then.) Noting was special about Walcott and if he never faced Marciano nobody would be talking about him to build up the level of opponents Marciano fought.

Okay, this is Tunney or one of the other Marciano bashers posting under an alt. Every post this guy makes goes right to Marciano being overrated even when the thread has nothing to do with Marciano.

Poet

All this talk of Jersey Joe recently made me watch more of him, he was a great fighter and was pulling some great moves in the ring. He was definitely robbed against Louis. If he made it a habit to keep his hands up more often he would have been even better since he could outbox just about anybody.

very very good fighter, robbed against louis in '47 and had an epic rivalry with charles, heavyweight champ at age 37

i can see how he paved the way for guys like toney and floyd with his nice rolling defence and accurate countershots, hes definitely underrated

ezzard charles was a superb fighter also....

i highly recommend watching some walcott if you are a toney or floyd fan, toney himself has said he learnt a lot watching jersey joe


Underrated? You mean overrated just to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody. Louis was past his prime when Walcott fought him even though Walcott was probably past his best too. Walcott lost 15 or so times in his career and was knocked out 6 or 7 times which means he had a glass chin ( I seen people say Shannon Briggs a guy who was knocked out only twice had a glass chin, Norton only 3 times, Michael Moorer and Tommy Morrison 3 times so the last time i checked 6 is more than 3 or 2 so Walcott had a horrible chin then.) Noting was special about Walcott and if he never faced Marciano nobody would be talking about him to build up the level of opponents Marciano fought.

This post cracked me up, he's bashing Rocky so bad its actually humorous.

Underrated? You mean overrated just to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody. Louis was past his prime when Walcott fought him even though Walcott was probably past his best too. Walcott lost 15 or so times in his career and was knocked out 6 or 7 times which means he had a glass chin ( I seen people say Shannon Briggs a guy who was knocked out only twice had a glass chin, Norton only 3 times, Michael Moorer and Tommy Morrison 3 times so the last time i checked 6 is more than 3 or 2 so Walcott had a horrible chin then.) Noting was special about Walcott and if he never faced Marciano nobody would be talking about him to build up the level of opponents Marciano fought.

I bet you don't know the circumstances of those losses, or anything about those opponents, save what can be cobbled together from Boxrec...

very very good fighter, robbed against louis in '47 and had an epic rivalry with charles, heavyweight champ at age 37

i can see how he paved the way for guys like toney and floyd with his nice rolling defence and accurate countershots, hes definitely underrated

ezzard charles was a superb fighter also....

i highly recommend watching some walcott if you are a toney or floyd fan, toney himself has said he learnt a lot watching jersey joe


Underrated? You mean overrated just to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody. Louis was past his prime when Walcott fought him even though Walcott was probably past his best too. Walcott lost 15 or so times in his career and was knocked out 6 or 7 times which means he had a glass chin ( I seen people say Shannon Briggs a guy who was knocked out only twice had a glass chin, Norton only 3 times, Michael Moorer and Tommy Morrison 3 times so the last time i checked 6 is more than 3 or 2 so Walcott had a horrible chin then.) Noting was special about Walcott and if he never faced Marciano nobody would be talking about him to build up the level of opponents Marciano fought.

im not a marciano fan at all.............

Should have won first Louis fight.
Beat crap out of Marciano before losing first fight against him.

Walcott was great, theres this move he does where he just walks up to a fighter then, not even a telegraph he throws a ko upper cut, got to be one of the sneekyest punches ever.

I have to say when i've watched some Ezzard Charles fights he was way ahead of his time, he had skills, not saying Walcott doesn't but when i first seen Charles fight i was amazed how skilled he was.

Back to Walcott, he going strong at old age when old age fighters was a rarety and when 30 years old was an old fighter.