Why do most people give Charles the nod over Walcott..

Most people consider Walcott's prime to be right around the time he fought Charles, regardless of his age, and its highly subjective that Charles was even at his best, given that his best performances came at lightheavyweight. In either case the two men split a 4 fight series with 2 wins a piece, and some have even claimed that their 4th and final meeting should have gone to Ezzard instead of Jersey..... So in essence, no.. It does not make much of an argument for Walcott beating Charles at an earlier stage in their careers..

 

Charles was in his prime? To me this is Ezzard Charles' prime...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56fBd7nfmUY[/ame]

 

Walcott's best years were around the time he beat Charles. In fact, it was probably Ezz who faded first. When he was still in his Heavyweight prime, he handled Walcott without much difficulty the first two times. A lot of reports suggest the 4th fight was a poor decision as well. Anyway, I think you could make a reasonable case for either one to be the greater Heavyweight.

 

Ezzard wasn't in his prime. Jersey joe was.

I'm interested in the final fight, any footage?

 

There are reasons to rate Walcott ahead of Charles, and there are reasons to rate Charles ahaed of Walcott.
Some reasons to rate Charles higher than Walcott :

1. He beat Walcott for the vacant title and successfully defended the title 8 times in two years. Walcott only won the title on his 5th attempt (although many say he was robbed on his 1st attempt)

2. He beat Walcott the first two times they met, and only lost to Walcott because he gave Walcott a third chance. Usually, in heavyweight championship fights, 2-0 is enough to claim supremacy. Charles' mission to remain busy cost him here.

3. He beat Joe Louis convincingly. Walcott lost a close and controversial fight, and was KO'd by Louis. (yes, you CAN argue Walcott faced a tougher Louis, but they both faced a washed-up version so who really cares?)

4. He went 15 rounds with Rocky Marciano, past his best. Walcott famously didn't.

 

Complete Myth. Walcott hurt Charles badly 4 or 5 times in the 2nd fight, and it was a very close fight, much closer than the scorecards indicated. Also the 3rd fight took place only 4 months after the 2nd fight so that debunks your charles heavyweight prime theory.

 

It's a fact Walcott faced a much tougher Louis. Louis still had blazing handspeed, power, and great combination punching in 1947...all of which was gone in 1950. Walcott deserves much more credit here.

 

Walcott spent what would have been his athletic prime as a part-time boxer, starving and self-taught. By the late 1940s, he took up boxing full time with a real trainer, stayed in remarkable shape, and developed into one of the craftier fighters in history. His best years as a fighter was around this time.

Charles was in his prime as well, I really don't see how anybody could argue otherwise outside of him moving up in weight( roughly only 4-5 lbs of muscle at this time) and maybe the psychological effects of the Baroudi fight....though neither factor seemed to hinder his performances as much as some claim. Just the year prior to Walcott, he KOed Archie Moore and Elmer Ray in probably the best wins of his career up to that point.

I suppose Charles' prime ended with more weight gain and the Layne, Valdez, and Johnson losses, though we are really looking at a loss of consistency rather than a sudden dive off the deep end. He just seemed less capable of boxing at the uber elite level everynight.

 

Walcott was very, very lucky to be granted three tries at Charles to beat him.

 

Charles is a legitimate top 10 pfp fighter with a resume of wins second only to Greb imo. Walcott was very good but I've always found him to be a little overrated on this forum.

Charles was a little shopworn and fighting above his best weight when he meet Walcott. he was definitely not the same fighter who put Archie Moore to sleep in their third fight.

 

Many people had Charles winning the 4th match meaning he'd have won the series 3-1. Still at HW most consider them level, Charles is ranked higher P4P because he's smaller

 

Charles' best performance was his 1st fight vs Marchegiano :deal
and not @ 175 vs much inferior opponents than Rocco .
Getting stopped by Lloyd Marshall wasn't such a best performance , neither his KO over Wright in which he was almost stopped himself .
Charles' best performance was after Cream's retirement .
Charles was 7-8 years younger than Cream which makes it obvious . Cream looked so good vs Rocco in their first fight just because he was so good & strong .
Also , Cream KOd Charles , so it's far from a split , it is a 2(1):2(0) , which leaves no place 4 doubt .
h2h Cream > Charles , p4p it's debatable because Cream was heavily muscled , stronger and naturally heavier .
Cream vs Louis #1 was a fight between 2 men of equal ages , and maybe Cream was even d older man by 1 year , and started at a younger age , and had less effective range & punch 2 keep opponents off himself .
Yet Cream beat a younger Louis than d1 that fought Charles and did it by impressing fashion which was d opposite of how Charles performed vs an older Louis . So Cream's 1st performance vs Louis >> Charles' performance vs Louis and Cream > Charles @ their actual fights against each other . Charles was a bit better vs Rocco , just because Cream was old by then and Charles was not .

Most people r idiots , even in this very sub section of forum , so they will find their excuses 2 y Charles was actually past his prime vs a man as old (or even older ) as Joe Louis whom was @ his own prime after Louis' final retirement .

 

I have no idea what it is about Ezzard Charles that makes people so illogical sometimes.

How was he different? He was fighting between 173-178 when he KOed Moore.

He was between 178-181 for Walcott I. Not a huge gap in weight as he continued to dominate top HWs with the same success rate he had while campaigning for a LHW title shot.

Shop wear? The time between Moore III and Waclott I was roughly a year and a half, he had nothing but dominating wins over Ray, Bivins, Baski, and Haynes in this time. There was the Baroudi tragedy, but he followed that up by most accounts brutalizing Elmer Ray with a two fisted account and knocking him out.

Even leading up to Walcott III with a little more weight, he had been nothing but dominating with little sign of slowing down. Could it be after two matches, the crafty and creative Walcott just developed a sneaky punch for the sole purpose of KOing Charles because he had no hope of ever outboxing him? Could it be the psychological effects of said demolition punch hindered Charles in the 4th fight, giving Walcott the edge he needed to make it a closer match than the previous three?