Given their respective records, surely to god, Walcott would be a clear favorite? You did say prime for prime, so Walcott's inconsistencies get forgiven.
Was it inconsistency, or was Walcott just not as good as you think? He lost to lesser fighters than Ringo.
He undoubtedly did, but there was a significant period, when he was knocking the ball out of the park. He pretty much cleaned out the rankings, to get a shot at Louis, and there wee a few feared punchers around!
The way Folley battered Bonavena, I'm sure Walcott would do the same, and do it better perhaps. Much more entertaining fight though.
And lost to Louis ... twice. For which he was awarded a fight for the vacant title when Joe retired ... and lost to Ezzard Charles. To get another shot at Ezzard ... he lost (by a comfortable margin) to Rex Layne. To get his third shot at Ezzard ... he lost (by ridiculously wide margin) to Charles in his bid gained by losing to Layne. What did he do in between his loss to Charles and getting another shot? Nothing. Damnedest thing you ever seen. He literally lost and lost and lost ... until he finally won. If he had lost to Ezzard again, no doubt he would have gotten another shot right away until someone got the result they wanted. He did beat Charles in a rematch and then promptly got KO’d twice by Rocky. If you go Jersey Joe’s career with a fine-toothed comb, you might find a prime in there somewhere, but it’s brief and obscure.
