Clearly Braddock was more durable than Walcott. I actually do think Walcott is better and am half-trolling by making it sound like I think it's cut and dry. I do think it's a genuine argument though. I agree that Brown Bomber was still very good, that much is evident from the second Walcott fight. I just don't think 'pretty damn incredible' is a fair summary. Certainly more plodding (and always was a plodder) which would've made him more susceptible to Walcott's game. Braddock had to fight Louis and had his moment throughout the fight.
Even if you want to use the excuse that Louis was past prime you can't ignore how he swept through the murderer's row of HW contenders prior to his title shot. It should be noted the Maxim 'loss' was reported as a robbery at the time. Braddock's resume doesn't come close
The only white contender who took shots at the BMR was Galento. Walcott certainly deserves more credit in that he's more proven against very dangerous fighters like Curtis Sheppard, Turkey Thompson, Tommy Gomez, Lee Q Murray and particularly Elmer Ray who the Louis camp avoided.
I'm not sure Walcott 'swept through' anything. He had his fair share of close/disputed decisions, and a few setbacks. I don't think Walcott was nearly as good as Max Schmeling, for one.
You forgot the man to knock Bivins off his pedestal, that's a big big win. Then he goes 1-1 with Louis and 2-2 with Charles and beats Harold Johnson (freak incident) Madness to say he's not great, if Walcott isn't great then Archie Moore isn't great either.
He also lost to Maxim, Layne and Ray in the same time period. If he was really as impressive as some people here suggest, then it wouldn't have been such a shock when he gave Joe Louis a nightmare in their first fight.
The papers of the time report the Maxim decision as a bad one, Ray was 1 of the best HWs and that loss was razor thin and the Layne fight close and controversial as you can see from the below highlights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJP3UXzLPTg
Watching that footage I think alot of Walcott's fights were very close and he has several supposed robberies because of his style of fighting. He rarely if ever initiates the action but rather waits for his opponent to or feints him into it in order to counter him. It's not something that alot of judges score highly Jimmy Young case in point. Watching that I could see it in favour of Layne giving he was the constant aggressor.
"over" Inflated... Does that mean REALLY inflated? I think plain inflated would've sufficed, though I obviously disagree. Oh the irony of this post though lulz. Anyways, I would wanna make a poll either that showed a laughable opinion. It's not my mine thing, and clearly not yours either.