Lennox v Vitali Was Lennox Lucky?

Probably the latter given that referees seem to let Vlad get away with ridiculous amounts of wrestling in his fights. Vlad's sheer size and power would be a factor, too, as would his new found stamina.

 

if you think Walcott has a chance agasint Wlad you really need to stop living in the past

Walcott weighed about 190 in a division where it didnt matter what weight he came in at

if he was around today he would be a light heavyweight or an incredibly undersized cruiserweight

 

Actually about 194-198. In an era when even tall, broad fighters came in 210-215 at best.

Walcott is comparable to Eddie Chambers in size but more awkward and with more pop in his punches. Maybe a hybrid of Chambers and Haye.

Walcott has a great performance against Hoff who was 6'3" with a larger listed wingspan than Wlad at 84 inches. Hoff appeared to be a solid European boxer on film.

Wlad wins though, just because there is no way to beat him with counter punching these days. He doesn't bite on feints, controls the distance and piles on too many points with his jabs.

 

Walcott gets knocked out.

 

Seriously these fantasy fights are all good and well but put it this way, if we had a time machine and pitted these two fighters together I know where most of the betting money would go and it sure wouldn't be on Walcott!

 

He never came close to even dropping David Haye so what makes you think he'd knock out Walcott?

Do you think Haye is better than Walcott?

 

Walcott can win this.

 

No. The counter punching Walcott would wait for Vlad to lead, and vice versa. What a sleeper.

 

He flattens them, just as Rocky did. Probably earlier than Rocky, would that count as him doing better? As I see it, the only way you could give any of them a chance is if you believe that boxing had evolved alot and that all the contenders of Marcianos era would be to much for Dempsey and his contemporaries. I suppose you could go with the Dempsey-doesnt-like-boxers-thing, but none of the guys you mentioned had the class or (in Moore's case) the physical abilities for that to matter. Dempsey was simply a much better fighter, regardless of styles.

How do you see it?

 

The sources i've read say Hoff wsd 6'6"? And from thr films id say this is closer to the truth - going on the films hes clearly a good deal more than 3" taller than Walcott? And the Hoff fight amongst others shows that Walcott wasnt just a "counterpuncher" as has been alluded to - he took the fight to the big guy and backed him up around the ring - and looked to be handling him with ridiculous ease really - and people forget what a puncher he was and what a good chin he had - Hatchetman Curtis Sheppard thought he was one of the hardest punchers around describing it as being hit like a mule - i think a real master like Walcott makes Vlad look like the amateur he is - dont care about the size Walcott schools him and terrifies him too - this is about levels and Vlad really doesnt know how to fight up close and Joe would take him way out of his comfort zone - Walcott stops Vlad inside the distance and is embarrassed in the process

 

Sure he can win this. I would say the odds for Walcott would be 7-1 or higher against. The fight could be a bit like the Byrd fights, except Byrd was a bit more durable.

We also saw Wlad vs a small but decent Eddie Chambers. It was a mis-match.

Unless Wlad somehow gets caught with the perfect shot, Walcott is over his head.

 

I don't think Byrd could go as many grueling rounds with Louis and Marciano the way that Walcott did. So I have to disagree about him being more durable. That said I concur that Wlad vs Walcott is a mismatch. Klit has too many advantages.