I said I thought WALTER was a good singer,he was a good performer in a folk club setting,as was Harry Cox,Sam Larner was much more versatile ,Sam could perform well in a pub or a folk club,He was a more extrovert singer than either of the other two.
therefore SAM could get his material,over to a wider audience[not just a folk revival audience].
comparisons between the singers are not nonsensical,as I have just demonstrated,Walter had sung out very little,[it took him many months to remember all the songs,and to get the songs right] before he made the tape for Roger Dixon [why because therewas no local pub for him to sing in,and if there was he would not have got the pubs attention],Sam Larner never had that trouble,all this means, is that Sam was a more versatile performer.
Personally of the three of them I prefer Harry Cox,but then preference for singers is generally subjective subjective.
being a good pub singer is part of being a good performer,but not the only ingredient to being a good performer,Walter and Harry were good performers in certain situations[revival folk festivals,revival folk clubs]the revival gave them a new lease of life.Sam was a good performer in pubs, as well as folk revival situations.
thank god for the folk revival,and revivalists like Peter Bellamy that helped [along with collectors] Walter to pass on his music live.

Just for the record here in Ireland,I regularly sing long songs in pubs[Barbara Allen,Factory Girl,False Knight on the road,occassionally Tam Linn] and the audience listens,its a question of knowing your pub,reading the mood,and knowing when is the right monment,there is a skill to pub singing as there is to folk club singing.Dick Miles