They are not my facts ,they are the general consensus of the experts who saw them fight in the flesh.You can swim against the tide if you so wish. It's of no concern to me.
What you claim as the general consensus is not a fact. On that matter, I've read numerous statements from experts who followed Charles and Walcott "in the flesh" state that they never looked better than their first meetings with Rock. I would never try to pass their opinion as a fact, but funny how the experts are only the experts to you when you like what they say. Wilfrid Smith: "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career" W.J. McGoogan "You wander what Charles could possibly do in September or any other time that he did not do on June 17. He fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best in his career of about seventeen years". So do you accept this as a fact because these writers witnessed the fight in the flesh?
I think Charles had 2 of his best fights leading up to Marciano an explosive KO over Bob Satterfield and Coley Wallace and his best fight ever on film was his battle in fight 1 vs Marciano....He boxed well against a still dangerous Louis but he battled, boxed Marciano and that may be his best fight at that weight
And he lost both the two previous fights to that as did Walcott so both were batting only 50% in their last 4 fightsl.Koing Satterfiield and Wallace was a hardly a unique feat.