Why do you pick Walcott to beat Charles when most people believe Charles had the better of their series?
my buddy ezzard,
let me first say ezzard charles was special. he rates # 7 on my all time greatest fighters list.
now............
charles-walcott series is 2-2 when u count the fact walcott did knock charles out, then the egde slightly goes to walcott.
in the first 2 charles fights, walcott did not fight aggresiveley enough. he sat back doing way to many tricks and did not let his hands go enough. u saw in the 3rd walcott fight when he let his hands go and fought more aggresive he did a lot better. charles said something about the 3rd walcott fight like "he was much more aggresive this time, and i tried to stop his attacks but i just couldn't". even in the 4th walcott-charles, walcott fought much more aggresive and this enabled him to outpoint charles this time. some say charles won this fight, but charles kinda let up in the late rounds and walcott fought more aggresivley and they granted him the rightful decision. you have to take the title from the champion and charles didnt.
* also the first 2 charles fights were alot closer than the scorecards indicate.
i also think charles never faced the absolute peak jersey joe walcott(though he did fight very close to it walcott in 3rd fight and look wut happened charles got kayoed). the absolute peak walcott was from the 1947 joe louis fight. walcott put on the best preformance of his career in this fight. he never looked faster. charles never faced this walcott, and i favor this version of walcott over any 47-48 version of charles.
joe louis fought both prime versions of walcott and charles, and he said walcott was better.
