he mostly does a lot of dancing, feinting, shuffling, and showboating, but in terms of actual fighting, I don't see him doing any better
Im confused, you claim walcott didnt actually fight well, he did lots of feinting showboting but not fighting.......YET THEN you claim
" Walcott showed very good all around speed and footwork in those fights, much better than he would years later when he finally was a champion. I think if the Walcott from these fights had fought Marciano, both fights might well have been a different story. I think Walcott's prime years were basically spent on all those failed title challenges he had before he became a champion"
im confused.... so either his showboating feinting made him less of a fighter in 47 or like u said later on it made him a better fighter in 47. not both. also you say the walcott of 47 was better than walcott of 52 but the same thing you accused walcott of not doing "fighting" in 47 walcott did tons of "actual fighting" in 52. so which is it?
What's there to be confused about? I said he looked like a better fighter in 47 than he did five years later. What fight with Louis in 52 are you saying he did more "actual fighting" in than the ones in 47?
Im talking walcott. u said walcott didnt do "actual fighting, more showboating" in 47, i responded with "well walcott did alot more actual fighting in 1951 so how does that made him worse"?
Are you claiming 1947 walcott would have beat ezzard charles pretty clearly, considering a past his prime walcott went 2-2 with charles?
