Does anyone think it's odd that Walcott-Charles is often named as one of the greatest series and rivalries of all time, but people only talk about the third fight. I agree it was probably the most notable of the series, but, I mean, it's called a classic SERIES. One fight doesn't make it a great series. The second fight was an awesome slugfest, just as good as the third fight, more action-packed, actually. The first fight was not filmed in its entirety, and was probably a good fight, but the fourth fight was comparatively boring. I imagine Walcott and Charles had both become wary of each other by the fourth fight. Still, I think the boringness of the fourth fight is overstated. The first ten rounds were boring, but it was two masters, doing world-class boxing, measuring and trying to succor each other into a trap counterpunch. And the last five rounds of the fight were pretty competitive. I still love watching these two in a wicked exchange.
