Jim Watt the boxer

Strange title, you may think. However, opinions on this forum are so often mixed on the subject of Jim Watt's commentaries, that I thought it might be opportune to remind ourselves about what a good fighter the Glaswegian actually was.

He'd shown immense promise as a young man when dropping a British title decision to the great Ken Buchanan, one of the best all-British clashes ever. Watt then lost his way, let down by a propensity to cut and unambitious management. However, on hooking up with Terry Lawless, his career blossomed into full flower. British and European lightweight titles were topped with the acquisition of the WBC title by stopping the immensely tough Colombian Alfredo Pitalua.

Nor was that the end of matters for Watt. He went on to make four successful defences of his title, at the time a record for a British boxer, and earn more money from boxing than anyone from these islands up to that point. His victims were notable - Charlie Nash, Sean O'Grady, against whom Watt stretched the rule book almost to breaking point to retain his world title, and above all, Howard Davis. Davis, who had won the Val Barker trophy at the Montreal Olympics, was then considered as good a professional prospect as Ray Leonard. Although Watt was the champion, most regarded his defence against Davis as a Scottish lamb being fed to an American lion. Watt's subsequent comfortable points victory on a sopping wet Glasgow evening is one of the great British world title fight performances in history, in my opinion.

Even when he lost his title to the superb Alexis Arguello, Watt emerged with plenty of credit, becoming one of the few to take the Nicaraguan the distance after been floored by him. To me, Watt's achievements entitle him to a position just within the fraternity of the twenty greatest UK boxers of all time. He has now become rather too excitable a summariser for some tastes, but it is worth remembering just how much Jim Watt knows of what he speaks.

Well said Captain, Watt’s name rarely crops up when discussing the best from these isles but a world champion in an era when it still meant something and some fine wins on his ledger, as you have alluded to the Davis win stands out in particularly. Caught his fight with Arguello on ESPN classic some months ago and he did not in any way disgrace himself in that one by any stretch in with one of the best of all time.

Cannot find a place for him in my top ten but as you say top 20 is more than justified and he may even find himself in the top fifteen

Is Watt third best ever from above the border? Would not want to set the captain off by even suggesting he could be above Buchanan and would also have Lynch above him but am struggling to think of too many others who deserve a place above him

Spot on at the moment, I would think, Jeff. Buchanan and Lynch, as you say, light the way, although Ricky Burns is getting closer to Watt's bronze medal. I'd now have Burns ahead of Walter McGowan for fourth place. Mind you, if Wee Walter hadn't cut so badly as to make Henry Cooper's skin look like oak, he'd have been right up among the greatest UK fighters ever.

Good points, Watt was slightly before my time, would it be fair to say Watt was a biovary an overachiever Captain? I mean this in the greatest respect, from what footage I've seen of Jim didn't look particularly talented but was a tough and cagey southpaw technician who found ways to pull out fights. I guess when he entered the ring as the underdog for his title defense against heavily hyped Howard Davis, but then pulled it out of the bag could be his defining moment?

Someone from I've seen who as rarity announced his retirement at just the right time.

Cheers Rodders

A fair bit, I should say, alma. I admit that belts are ten a penny these days, but Burns has still managed to excel himself at two weights. Beating Martinez, Katsidis and Paulus Moses deserves respect and admiration, particularly as he was second favourite in all of them. He's not yet proved himself definitively to be the boss at any one weight yet, which Watt did (briefly) at lightweight, but one can't fail to be impressed by his recent improvement.

I may have said this elsewhere, but Burns actually reminds me of Watt in the late-blooming Scotsman stakes. Ricky is a converted southpaw, while Jim remained that way all his life, but the similarities are clear to me.

Scotland not got the best of talent pools to select from when it comes to the pros, alma (if only Dick Mctaggart had turned pro). Burns is good value for fourth and as captain says, could, if he keeps progressing, take over from Watt in third place.

Burns hasn't got any big names on his CV imo, whether they're wins or losses he hasn't been in with anyone at arguello's level

Who's burns best win? Martinez, Mitchell, katsidis?

Watt did well for himself and can't really be dissappointed with his career and although lost a few he generally fought a high level of opposition

"Overachiever" is fair enough, Rodney. Jim certainly maximised every ounce of ability he had at his disposal. The Davis victory is undoubtedly his signature performance.

Success came to Watt relatively late in life and he was always a thinking individual. As he said when interviewed after Arguello died, he could have had a rematch with Alexis, but he "didn't see a lot of point. He was just a better fighter than me." Smart man, deserving of a great deal of respect.

That's why Ricky can't yet be ranked ahead of Watt, WHU. He needs to beat an accepted top-notcher to eclipse Watt's achievements. Mitchell wouldn't be one of his top three wins, for me. Burns was expected to do the job, albeit not in the tremendous style that he accomplished it.

No, Martinez, Katsidis and Moses, all of whom were widely expected to find Burns out and failed to do so, are his foremost scalps. Who knows where the improvement will end? I certainly don't rule out his ability to jump ahead of Watt eventually, although it won't be easy.

Katsidis and Martinez maybe but Moses? Moses was not suppose to find burns out, he was a unknown quanity having fought only in Africa and burns was heavily favoured to win

Unknown quantity, WHU? WBA lightweight champ as recently as 2010, a title won in Japan. He'd also previously gone on the road to the Ukraine to beat a man who was a later European title opponent of John Murray's. Decent pedigree, Moses had, and gave Burns a decent scrap.

I believe you if you tell me that Burns started favourite for that one, but Moses is a much better name than Mitchell in the lightweight stakes, from any angle you care to view it.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2012/3/10/2858380/burns-vs-moses-fight-time-tv-schedule-odds-undercard-boxing-news

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/view-blog.asp?BlogID=715

Can you prove that Moses was the favourite?

He was unknown as he won the lightweight title vs a fighter who wasnt a huge name but got blasted out by a good but not great fighter in Acosta. Add to the fact there is very little footage of him

No, I can't prove it. Indeed, I said that I'll happily take your word for the fact that he wasn't. It may be of interest that Moses has just beaten another thoroughly decent fighter in Cassius Baloyi for his comeback fight after losing to Burns.

Remembering the tussle that he gave Burns, I think that it's fair to say that Moses merits quite high rank among Ricky's opponents.

Watt was a better technician then Buchannon

Nonsense, Onetwo, as Jim would tell you himself. Just as simple as that. Buchanan is one of the greatest technicians in the history of the lightweight division. Watt, comparatively, was a scrapper, and a damned good one. Ask any Scottish boxing coach to comment on your assertion. I look forward to their answers.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Watt was a better technician then Buchannon

Something is better than nothing onetwo

Watt was a master defensive technical fighter who does not get the credit he deserves.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Nonsense, Onetwo, as Jim would tell you himself. Just as simple as that. Buchanan is one of the greatest technicians in the history of the lightweight division. Watt, comparatively, was a scrapper, and a damned good one. Ask any Scottish boxing coach to comment on your assertion. I look forward to their answers.

Scrapper?????

No No No Watt had great defencive skills which made up for his lack of speed and power. Thats why he got as far as he did.

Watt should have been thrown out against O'Grady. But he was terrific against Davis. People said that Davis under-performed against Watt, but I prefer to see it as Watt not giving him the chance to perform.

But what a Glasgow kiss he planted on poor Sean.

You said that he was technically Buchanan's superior. I repeat, it's nonsense. Ken had the sweetest left hand in the business and every other punch in his arsenal. The only thing he lacked was KO power. Watt, by contrast was a slightly more awkward southpaw with a somewhat shonky right hook that came from out of the opponent's eyeline and was thus a pretty effective weapon. He also had fabulous endurance and a heart the size of a town.

As far as defensive skills are concerned, I suggest you look at the excellent five-minute montage of Buchanan, available on youtube, and then tell me that Watt was his master in that department either. Had their peaks been closer, a second fight between them would have been interesting, but Watt would still never have been anywhere near Ken's technical fluidity.

Fair enough but Watt cannopt be labeled a scrapper.

Very good boxer better then Burns.

I did say "comparatively". Watt was better than that, but up against Buchanan, it was a terrier against a greyhound.

Burns v Watt. I'd pay to avoid that match.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Watt was a better technician then Buchannon

I've read some nonsense in my time on this forum and on the old beeb 606, but this Onetwo is up with the best of them.

You might as well of said Audley Harrison has a better chin than Holyfield, it's that far of the mark.

Cheers Rodders

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Watt was a better technician then Buchannon

Ishmael Laguna v Jim Watt

who wins.

I'll get my dirty secret out of the way to start with - I actually enjoy Watt the commentator. There, I've said it.

Anyway, I fully agree with the point of your article, captain. Watt has been a seriously underrated operator from these shores, regularly forgotten in comparison to the McGuigans, Winstones and Hayes of this world when, in fact, he deserves to be at least on an equal footing with them, if not ahead.

Very lucky against O'Grady, and his interview after the fight was a rare time in which he failed to show a modicum of class, but that aside I can't fault him. His fights with Davis, Nash and Arguello showed that he was a top class fighter with a very, very big heart and it's nice to see him get a mention.

Depends where it's fought, Onetwo. I give Jim a good chance in Glasgow; none at all in San Juan or New York, where Ken had to face him.

I like Ismael in this one captain.

Points win

Very possibly, onetwo.

Tough one to rate Jim. Record skewed by cuts losses, gallant loss to arguello, poor performance and tasty headwork against o'grady (a man with one of the strangest careers/records in boxing), and that defining win against amateur superstar Davis....Even that win is tough to rate retrospectively.

Davis was still a novice in pro terms and his career never caught fire... But he did go on to give good showings against Rosario and Taylor and to a lesser degree camacho. If we can put watt in their category we're clearly talking about a very useful fighter.

Like Chris , although he's a bit repetitive, and almost a stereotype of himself these days, I don't mind watt as a commentator, there are plenty that bug me more. And at least he was a legit world champion at a time when it meant something. And, if nothing else, when discussing the dark arts in his commentary at least we know he speaks as an authority on the subject .