Head 2 Head Clearly Charles takes this. He clearly wins the first 2. Gets Ko'd in the third and most agree he won the final fight despite losing the decision.. Both are pretty much bang on their HW Primes but Charles was seemingly on a down turn to his career as he would never be the dominant force post-Walcott 3 indicating the first 2 fights are most significant Similar Opponents Louis - Charles wins wide against Louis but faces a much more faded version. Walcott goes close arguably beating Louis only to be stopped in the rematch. Marciano - Overall Charles seems to do a little better at least going the distance with the Rock despite been past his prime. He would be ko'd in the rematch after putting up a valiant effort. Walcott leads on the cards to have Marciano brutally stop him late and then have a 1st round KO in the rematch. Maxim - Charles beats Maxim 3-0, Walcott loses 1 and wins 2 against Maxim Layne - Charles goes 2-1 against Layne stopping him once and losing after Charles skills started to erod, Walcott loses near his prime. Bivins - Charles wins 4 stopping Bivins once, Walcott wins a close SD Harold Johnson - Walcott beats Johnson and Charles loses a close SD but is clearly past his prime at this stage Elmer Ray - Charles stopped Ray after previously losing an SD but was reportedly robbed in that loss, Walcott won a MD and lost an SD. It sounds like Charles did better hear Losses in Prime Walcott has more poor loses in his prime such as Simon/Layne/ Overall Resume Charles obviously has more great names on his resume but this includes names who competed at HW. Although at LHW Archie Moore was a future top HW he beat 5 times. Dominance You could easily argue Charles was undefeated from 1943-1951 (and he was fighting HWs as early as 43 and regularly 46 onwards). This is some streak against all comers. Meanwhile Walcott rarely went 12months without a loss Conclusion Charles was better head-head, better against common opponents and has a better overall resume. Thats why I have him as my 14th Greatest HW and Walcott at a respectable number 20. Am I wrong? 50s expert Suzie Q thinks so I'd like to hear his and your thoughts.
Not Walcott though. He turn pro at 16, weighing around the middleweight to lightheavyweight. Once he hit his early 20's, he was a 190 pounder.
I always put Charles above Walcott but I'll always have them right next to each other. Around #14 and #15, thereabouts. Charles put a string of title defenses together and was often extremely dominant against decent opponents. Walcott at his best was just as good but a little less consistent. Charles dominated Walcott in their first fight, but all credit to Walcott for what he did in their 3rd fight. Charles' comeback to go the dull 15 with Marciano when no one gave him a chance is probably what clinches it. But there's very little to seperate this two. They are damn-near a dead tie on my list.
