Walcott vs Charles in terms of H2H ability at HW poll

They won two and lost two apiece against each other.

They both split series with two of the same opponents.

They both beat many of the same opponents, and lost to some of the same opponents.

That is probably about as close as you can constrain any two heavyweight champions as being to each other.

They can toss a coin for it as far as I am concerned!

 

Charles beat Joe Louis, whereas Walcott at best went one and one, if you give him credit for the first fight, which is widely perceived as a robbery. Technically, Walcott is 0-2.

Also, Charles did some of this best work at LHW, so he has more great names on his resume and pound per pound consideration.

Just my opinion. Two great fighters.

 

Charles is CLEARLY better, but it's pretty close.

Looking at them on film, Charles was clearly superior. His overall skill set was more diverse, better schooled and more effective. He also was quicker, more accurate and tougher. His footwork was clearly superior, and he had a much more fleshed out, efficient defence. Walcott was bigger, more powerful and stronger. His feints were also better, and he was more arrhythmatic.

Their actual quadrilogy, was very closely contested on paper, with KO being a Juan Manuel Márquez-esc moment. A closer inspection, and a watch of the fights, shows it's not as clean-cut as 2-2 with a KO for Walcott. Going to look at the press' scorecards for the 4th fight, it shows it was very evenly contested, with more of the press (21-18) giving it Charles. The story is that Charles gathered an spectacular lead but was too negative to win the later rounds. Walcott complained he was robbed in the 2nd fight, which might have some merit, but the press' scorecards again had it 8-5-2 for Charles, AND Charles scored a very heavy KD in the 9th. Even in the 3rd fight, Walcott scored one of the most perfect KOs ever captured on film, but it was a very evenly contested fight going in to the 7th.

That's besides the point, as the most peak versions of both fought in the first fight, and Charles won, with flying colours. 78/72, 77/73/78/72. Then you look at their results vs common opponents...

Charles should be 3-0 vs Layne, and he was past prime for all 3 fights. Walcott let himself go and lost to Layne in his absolute prime.

Going 15 & 8 with Marciano, holding him to close decision whilst past prime > going 13 & 1.

Walcott did beat the a green Johnson, via back injury. Johnson's back injury was supposedly caused by a KD in the 2nd, which Johnson was up at the count of 3 for. Johnson would later beat a past prime Charles, in a very close decision(I had it a draw).

The Louis fights are interesting, since Louis was argued to have won the first Walcott fight, but most thought he lost. No-one thought he won the Charles fight, but he was significantly worse vs Charles and coming off a 14 month lay off. Then again, Charles wasn't KTFO'd by a past prime Louis.

Prime Charles, whilst smaller, had easier times with Ray, Bivins, Baski, Oma, and Maxim.

Charles > Walcott

 

I think it is fair to say that Waloctt was up against a better version of Louis than Charles was.

I suspect that Walcott would have beaten that version of Louis, but it is supposition of course.

Agreed.

In a pound for pound sense Charles has it by a country mile, but at heavyweight they are comparable.

 

They're of a similar standing really imo. If either has an edge, it's Charles maybe.

 

This content is protected