Did the best heavyweight talent get to the top of the rankings in the 40s and 50s?

Very hard to tell. Louis, of course, made history with his longevity.

Walcott's performances looked to have mirrored his circumstances. A handful of children, often had no time to train, multiple jobs.

It's no wonder that Walcott would often glide about the ring and hardly apply himself against numerous C level fighters. He was always ailed by something.

There are excuses and then there are legitimate reasons; Walcott falls under the latter. The man, even for boxing standards, had a tough life. Not unlike ol' J. Johnsons at times.

There is a rumor floating about that claims of Jack Blackburn swearing by Walcott's natural talent over Louis'. Whatever the validity to the comment, it is a nod to his potential none the less.

Blackburn would have made sure he always came in conditioned and with the right game plan, and very rarely did Walcott ever come into the ring with both of those bases covered.

With Blackburn under his wings, we would have seen far more of that assertive and aggressive counter-puncher of the third Charles fight.

 

There is an interview with Ezzard in the papers the next day and he explains how much more difficult he was to fight in this new, aggressive manner.

In this fight, Walcott plays to his strengths, cleverly throwing in the big lead punches to encourage, and then with those silky twists of his to pivot and counter with a few crashing shots.

The last punch was masterful, but the fight he had been leading up till then was smoothly on 'anti-Charles'.

The series could have been much cleaner in is favour had he conducted himself properly.