Are Charles & Walcott equal

I rate Walcott higher but I'm a minority in that department. Walcott fought hard with pre retirement Louis, and Marciano has quoted them both as the hardest fights he ever fought, but he quotes Walcott as the hardest puncher and who believed was the greatest of the period.

And of course, Walcott was the one who got a knockout

 

P4p I rate Charles MUCH higher

At HW I have them side by side generally in my Floyd Patterson neighborhood

 

Marciano said his hardest fight was his first one with Charles.

 

https://ibb.co/SfpZcpx

 

Someone once told me Charles was pretty good at lightheavyweight. Maybe that should factor in.



Less sarcastic version... It's not even that close. Charles is one of the greatest ever. Walcott not.

 

It's a heavyweight h2h rating, not a p4p greatness rating

 

Love both of them but I rate Charles much higher. Then again, Charles is probably my all time favorite fighter. He was as complete of a fighter as you could get.

 

It does not state this in the OP. It's quite open ended.

 

p4p Charles, and clearly so

HW, Walcott, and it's closer.

 

I'm not even sure that Walcott beats out Charles at heavyweight. They split their series. Beyond that, Charles had an impressive array of scalps including Maxim, Oma, Layne, Louis, Barrone, Baski, Beshore, Valentino, Ray... a veritable who's who of late 40's/early 50's heavies. By the time he fought Marciano, the wheels were beginning to fall off but he was an undersized guy fighting in the top ranks of the heavies for 6 or 7 years. I think his ledger of wins just might be deeper than Joe's.

 

I assume you mean as heavyweights (not P4P).

I think Chalres had a better career, but ability wise they were extremely close.

 

I really can't be arsed to go looking for quotes Here's just one to keep you quiet.

http://hardcoreboxing.net/Smith6152006.htm

 

As already mentioned p4p its Charles clearly not a real competition, however at heavyweights its very close I'd give it Walcott slightly.

 

At heavyweight, they are pretty close.

The end result of their series was a decisive win for Charles, a controversial win for Charles, a decisive win for Walcott, and a controversial win for Walcott.

They would likely have had to fight a third time if Marciano had not come along.

Charles obviously had a better title reign, but Walcott had a better pre title run.

Beyond that there is a lot of overlap in their lists of victims, and they largely lost to the same men.

Not a lot separating them.