Since he came back, he’d gave Louis a good fight and arguably beat him, but had lost to him by knockout in the rematch, had lost to Rex Layne and Ezzard Charles twice convincingly all of which were unavenged, he had more avenged losses. Was he viewed as mediocre/just not quite world level considering he’d had a lot of time to do something by the Charles rematch? Obviously he’s viewed as elite now, but I could imagine there was quite a contrast in how he was viewed before he won the title compared to now.
both Walcott & Charles got some bad press at times, Wash Up was used... but these two proved, given the chance, Top Fighters are just that, TOP Fighters. same with Lloyd Marshall and All 3 of them are actually Elite All-time Greats.
He was viewed as a mobbed-up guy who was going to keep getting title shots until he won one. Finally Ezzard capitulated.
Lttle bit of hindsight logic here, but basically true, although at the time it was thought that he'd just keep on losing and never win one!
Shame how his career trajectory and life worked out. Both things gave him his style of fighting but really prevented him from being a great champion.
Obviously - Who wouldn’t? If some spirit guaranteed me the heavyweight championship of the world in exchange for years of poverty and hardship I wouldn’t say no.
As late as the 1960's Walcott and Charles were seen as so, so heavyweight champions, not the best,not the worst,their rehabilitation has been comparatively recent.
