Walcott & Charles against each of Joe Louis foes during his unbeaten title run...

At their best, they should theoretically be favoured over everybody except Schmeling, and perhaps Conn.

In practice they wouldn’t have a cat in hells chance of replicating that run.

 

A lot of those challengers were a lot better men than Louis made them look. Pastor, Farr, Godoy, John Henry Lewis, Galento, Baer and Nova for starters. Mauriello too. They would hold their own with most champions.

Lou Nova was a big showdown. I'm sure it was one of Louis's biggest grossing title defence but it's significance has become largely forgotten.

 

No fighter can be at their best for 25 plus fights. If possible they beat them all with Conn and Pastor the dangers, style wise.

 

25 times! 12 years! I like Charles and Walcott but eventually they would have lost. I'd give Charles a little better chance than Walcott though. Charles did go 41-1 (24) thru 42 fights from 1944 - July of 1951 including 9-0 (5) in HW world title fights. The only loss was a split-decision to Elmer Ray. He did beat Ray in their rematch, KO9.

 

They should both beat all of Louis's opposition if they are near their best, the issue is doing it over 12 years which neither managed but maybe they would with better early management in their careers.

 

Charles actually was quite consistent so I could see him doing it to be fair.

Walcott makes maybe 1 or 2 defences before being knocked out.

 

Look at it this way.

Charles and Walcott were better than most of Louis's challengers, but a few of his challengers were better than Ray or Layne.

They would have picked up losses.

 

One of the guys that a prime Walcott might have done best against ironically is somebody who beat him, in Abe Simon. If you look at the way Walcott worked his way through the punchers after the war, I think he would really have had the tools to do a number on Simon.

By the same token he might do well against Baer and Galento.

I think that Arturo Godoy would have given them both fits, and that Billy Conn and Bob Pastor would have been tough stylistic matches.

 

Ray beat Charles by split-decision in a fight that many felt Charles won. Charles stopped Ray in the 9th round of their rematch.

Layne beat Charles in a close fight (many felt Charles won this fight as well) after Charles had lost the HW title... scores were a bit strange, ref/judge Jack Dempsey scored 7 rounds even, 2 for Layne, and 1 for Charles! Charles stopped Layne in the 11th round of their first fight and beat him by clear decision in there 3rd fight (dropped him 3 times).

Walcott knocked Charles out in 1951 but Charles had beat him by decision twice (dropping him once), I thought Charles beat Walcott in their 4th fight.

Let's pretend that Charles got the nod in his decision losses to Ray, Walcott, Layne, Valdes, and Johnson. That's 5 close decisions that didn't go his way and that still leaves that KO loss to Walcott... close, but not quite. 26 world title wins in a row over a 12 year period is not easy to achieve no matter who the opponents are.

Walcott was never that consistent so forget about it.

 

The bottom line is that it didn't take a great fighter to beat either of them, and it would not have done in Louis's era.

Neither of them was dominant champion material.