Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Thats hardly the stuff of legends is it, look at who he lost too in his prime. 14-11 Jim Thompson, 14-9 195lb Willie Reddish, amongst others
Simply picking Simon because hes BIG against an all time on the basis that Walcott got complacent and got clocked doesn't sound like good logic.
Do you think Ross Purrity would beat Patterson too? Hes even bigger and beat Wlad - in a very good fight if you get to see it.
You can't get away from the fact that size matters. Purity did beat Wlad and also knocked out Gonzalez. I don't see Patterson being an obvious victor over him, no. Patterson never proved he could beat most of the bigger men of his own era, except Chuvalo, and that was a close and very tough fight. Chuvalo is 40 lbs lighter and two inches, at least, shorter than Purrity.
Patterson and Walcott--When Patterson came out of the amateurs, he was taken under the wing of a major trainer. He could train full time and he had the best facilities and sparring partners, etc. Men like Walcott, and also Johnson and Dempsey, had to fight under entirely different conditions. I don't know if Walcott was starving, but he probably had to take many fights under extremely short notice and without proper preparation. Johnson, Dempsey, and Walcott all looked ordinary for years, until they turned it around and proved their talent. Look at how much Dempsey improved under Kearn's guidance in a short time. Patterson was not as erratic in his early years, but any comparision with Walcott is apples to oranges.