Walcott probably decision, much lighter on his feet, if he sticks behind the jab that is. There is a danger though, Walcott loves the slip to the right then throw a counter right, and he does it often, and Marciano read it because he predicted it because Walcott did it so many times when Marciano jabbed; it became predictable, so he threw the jab because he knew what Walcott was gonna do and slipped just enough to the left to avoid Walcott’s counter right so he could beat him to it. I don’t believe Schmeling is as good as Marciano, but the right is one of his better weapons and he can set it up. Walcott shouldn’t do so many counter rights, he should just use a variable jab, up and down, feint with the hands and feet, no need to throw many counter right here, he can win it behind the jab.
If Schmeling could figure out Walcott's pattern or slow him down,he might have. But I'm leaning more towards Walcott since he's trickier.
Max. By close decision or even late KO. I think he is underrated because of the Louis rematch. The stakes were so high rumours of Joe having loaded gloves are not as preposterous as they might appear at first Fracturing someone's spine with a punch? That seems almost impossible to me.
Both at their best, I go with Schmeling. He was the younger man and had the tools as a smart and patient counter puncher to take Walcott apart over time. Walcott was a brilliant fighter but his guard was sloppy at times and his chin wasn't the best either. Schmeling was a slow starter who had problems with pressure fighters, especially in the first few rounds. Walcott was not the high volume puncher though. Both were quite inconsistent. This means that they can also beat each other pretty well, depending on their current form.