Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer....Sure. I'd agree. I personally do not see any of the above men beating heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott, but that's just my opinion. I also see the Charles of the first Marciano fight being on par with any of the above. But they certainly would have presented interesting styles matchups. All 3 were dangerous great fighters in my view. Especially Baer-Marciano one of the all time slugfests. I do think you went overboard mentioning Carnera with those guys. Carnera was a borderline gooftrooper. He was nowhere near a great fighter. I think Archie Moore would have made mince meat out of Carnera. I favor many of the early 1950s best over Carnera. Even a 1951 Louis would have jabbed Carnera to death. Don't think Rock would have had much trouble with him.
Carnera was good. In 1964, Joe Louis rated Carnera just behind Walcott among the best men he beat. He rated Billy Conn, Max Baer and Max Schmeling above Walcott.
Joe Louis also said he picked Marciano and Walcott to beat Muhammad Ali(Source: Joe Louis My life). I have heard him speak very highly of Walcott on occasions. Joe said a lot of things, remember he was a drug addict. Who knows what his state of mind was when he said all these things. Like you said. He was good. Not very good. Not great. Honestly, I would be shocked if Walcott lost more than 1 round vs Carnera in a 15 rounder.
Louis rated Walcott 4th among the list of opponents in the article I'm refering to, so I think that counts for him speaking highly of Walcott. Louis's drug addiction has no bearing on his attitude to boxing and the men he fought. He consistently ranked Billy Conn the best boxer he fought. Primo Carnera beat some good fighters. I have no idea how Walcott would do against him, or whether Walcott was known to win fights by such wide margins (I think not).
1. "the heavyweight division hadn't really recovered from the war years and the loss of dozens of fight club venues" Sort of backwards about the war years and fight clubs. Here is an article from the New York Times, 12-28-1944 by James P Dawson: "RISE IN 1944 IN BOXING ACTIVITY "MORE RINGMEN IN COMPETITION AT GREATER NUMBER OF VENUES "Notwithstanding the grim business of war, boxing promoters throughout the country had more talent to draw upon this year than had been at their disposal for more than a decade. To the number of 4,382, boxers were active. They had more centers of activity, too, for the number of boxing clubs operating in this country through 1944 exceeded that of last year." "The authority for this information is THE RING, a boxing magazine. Publisher Nat Fleischer emphasizes the quantity of the material, although deploying to a large extent the quality. He attributes the increased number to the influx of boxing fans to defense work areas." The decline of the clubs due to television and the post-war economic boom might be argued to have eventually weakened boxing, as well as the rise of other professional sports, but these factors would only have increased over the decades, so it is hard to see why they would make the 1946-1955 period a weak era. It seems odd that boxing venues would prosper during the war, but we must remember that boxing is an urban sport. There are few fightclubs in farming areas. The movement of the population from the farms to urban centers during the war actually gave boxing a shot in the arm. 2. Old veterans were dominating--like the 1910-1919 era when champions Johnson and Willard ranged from 32 to 37 years of age. The vaunted seventies were dominated from 1974 to 1978 by the aged Ali. The early eighties by the aging Holmes. The nineties by the aging Holyfield and ancient Foreman, and the last ten years by the long in the tooth Lewis and Vitali, and Wlad is no spring chicken anymore either. The difference with the fifties is that the younger men, Charles and Marciano, won more often than not, unlike in the teens or seventies, or the last decade. 3. "The late forties/early fifties are generally acknowledged as somewhat of a weak era." I don't think this is true. When the Ring last picked its top heavyweights in 1998, Louis, Marciano, Charles, and Walcott were in the top 13. I think only the seventies did better. As for all of boxing, I think 1946 to 1955 was a great era lightheavy--Charles, Moore, Johnson Middle--Zale, LaMotta, Cerdan, Robinson Welter--Robinson, Gavilan, Graham, Basilio Light--Williams Feather--Pep, Saddler
"I think Rocky was a full level better than any other fighter of his era" Yes. But this would also be true of Jeffries, Johnson, Louis, and Ali before his exile. "Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, or Carnera" I don't see these men as group being better than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and even an old Louis. (Sharkey lost more often than not from 1933 on. Louis at least could still beat the second-tier guys)
Brion was 28-3 and had just beaten the likes of 46-4-1 Bernie Reynolds, Vern Mitchell, Tami Mauriello, Charley Norkus,Tiger Ted Lowry and Keene Simmons and after his loss to Louis beat 13-0 Wes Bascom, Joe Kahut and Abel Cestac,Dan Bucceroni,Bill Wilson among others. Even some of his tough losses were learning experiences He had beaten the 2 men that beat him prior to his fight with Louis with the only other loss being a close fight with Roland Lastarza. As far as fighting Marciano, was Louis ready for the Marciano,well many a experienced fighter beat the younger physically prime fighter, Holmes did it vs Mercer but got destroyed by Tyson. Ali was completely shot when he fought Holmes but got past Young and Norton while just starting to slip. Brion was a good, fast handed tough fighter and Louis handled him. He was not prime but still formidable