If there’s no Marciano and he’s champ, he’s fighting guys like this defending his title. I don’t see him going on a three-fight streak against the challengers he would have faced and could easily have lost his next one to any contender chosen. I’m not saying he was a bum. I’m saying he wasn’t head and shoulders above any of the other guys around the top tier at that time, as his record clearly shows.
Truthfully not very long. In addition to his advanced age, Walcott was always sort of inconsistent to begin with
I get his age being brought up, but he was also clearly a better fighter in the mid to late 30s than he was earlier in his career so the only question is how long he could have kept it up. I’m saying since his best was about .500 over the last 5+ years of his career, not long. And that’s at his ‘peak.’
Do agree with some of this. Let's face it, in 1952 he gave the only unbeaten heavyweight such an hard fight, he was in from on the cards. Jersey didn't look finished there. Take rocky out of the picture and...?
Yes he gave Marciano an excellent match and handed ezzard charles two defeats. But for as good as he was, Joe Walcott could never hold on to winning streak for very long. And being 37-38 years old would only exacerbate the problem.