I've read that he was a shot 38 year old but he doesn't look shot but it's hard to think that a near 40 year old in his second to last fight was at his best
Walcott was probably in better shape in his 30s due to superior training, nutrition, and other advantages not available to him when he was a younger man. It stands out as a strong performance because as HW Champion Walcott was no longer fighting frequently in less than desirable conditions to make ends meet. He had a reasonable amount of time to prepare for Marciano and probably the best available training resources of his entire career. Walcott also aged well due to his improved skill set and cagey experience. I cant see a younger Walcott who was getting knocked out by Abe Simon doing any better, likely he does worse. Now was the Walcott who fought Joe Louis a few years prior better? Possible but likely only to a modest extent.
I'm not convinced he was that much past it. I don't see much to point to it, other than just his age.
Nobody is prime at 38. That said Walcott looked a pretty good 38. I think "past-it but still quality" is the fairest vote, although I guess you could make a case that his career had gotten a bit of a second wind. In that case "tail end of prime" could be argued.
The general idea is that Walcott's prime was later on in his career because in his early career he was living in rough conditions and was basically a gatekeeper. These are obvious true; valid reasons, not excuses. Thing is, is that they inevitably led him to calling it quits in 1940, but shortly after World War II, he was under new management (Bocchicchio) and he was living a comfortable life. He was training full time, living like an athlete and actively getting paid the wages of a top contender. There were no getting to grips with his style, there was no lack of inexperience. As soon as he came out of his first retirement in 1944, and once the ring rust had been shaken off - he was from then on in his prime. From 1944, until 1952 is a very long time to actually think Walcott was prime for. It's a stretch - to say the least - to think that Walcott's prime actually lasted a whole eight years. Especially when you consider that all of the mileage of his first career rendition, as well as the manual labour which will have undoubtedly augmented his physical breakdown, clearly stacks up and is a lot in his own right. Then add the four years inactivity which likely took something out if him in the ways of speed and reflexes, and then finally the additional wear and tear he'd have picked up vs the likes of Ray, Bivins, Maxim, Charles, Louis, Layne, etc; in his long, second-career before Marciano I. In fact, it's clear that age was a perceived problem at the time. Headed into the first bout with Charles, there was a general belief that Walcott was too old. Saying he was shot to pieces for the first fight is flat out wrong. Dunno who's been saying that. He was clearly still an elite fighter and he was also, the best heavyweight in the world. So the win deserves respect, and you can see on the film on the Marciano fight that he was clearly still an elite fighter. It's just that say, Charles or Louis' wins over him are clearly better. I do think that such a devasting knockout and war took a massive toll on him, but also made him lose motivation. He was a rich man, he'd been the champion and I can't imagine he wanted to carry on. He clearly went in there in the rematch with the idea that he was getting out quick smart. I think saying he was shot by that point is fair. So I went with Past-it But Still Quality, since that seems the most apt.
He looked amazing to me. Walcott clowned Marciano in spells. The thing is, it's complicated by the type of fighter Rocky was. He's a nightmare match for an older fighter, he has real advantages over older fighters, by his nature. So I understand why their ages give people grief. But I can't say he was past his prime based upon what I see of him in the ring.
