Byrds best work was still a year or more ahead of him when he fought Ike. That alone is enough to call into question whether Ike would have got the same results vs a more experienced Byrd, with more fights against legitimately elite opposition. Ike looked very impressive as far is it went, but we never really saw him in with currently elite opponents, and we never found out how good he really was. That alone should be enough to favour Walcott, who had a whole myriad of wins over elite opposition by 49.
What elite heavyweights had Walcott beaten by 1949? I'll take Ike's win over an energized Tua and his early stoppage of Byrd over 1949 Walcott's heavyweight resume any day. And you still have not provided any reason to believe that the Byrd of 2000-2002 was materially better than the Byrd of 1999, let alone that he would have been able to give Ibeabuchi a competitive fight. Upsets happen but it seems most likely that Ike catches and hurts the much smaller Walcott. He'd be in with a physical specimen who's established what he can do to slick, skilled, defensively-gifted fighters, and he would certainly be able to take Walcott's punches better than Walcott could take his.
I haven't even read all the posts and won't. Let's start a new thread 'newbies'. 1949 heavyweights (who would have been prime in 1999) v. 1999 heavyweights (who would have been prime in 1949). Will this era c r a p ever stop? atsch
I know exactly what the wins were worth at the time but that's not what I asked. My question remains though: what men who you would consider to be elite heavyweights had Walcott beaten in 1949? Surely you recognize that being ranked in one era doesn't necessarily make someone an "elite" fighter? Still unconvincing logic. I take it you don't have anything to say about how Byrd's actual skills and attributes in the ring allegedly changed over time? You've given me no reason to believe that the Byrd who fought Ike wouldn't have fared as well as he did against Tua and the Brothers K had he fought them in 1999 instead of in 2000-2001. Why ask this question as if I haven't already answered it for you at length? One man is much larger than the other and demonstrated a great chin, great work rate, and the ability to solve slick, defensively-gifted opponents. The other lost to smaller men who weren't any more skilled than Ike and had never been in the ring with anyone like him. It's really not rocket science.
How about the Best offensive guard in 1950 who would be prime in 2015, vs. a 1950 J.J. Watt? Useless argument.
I take it you agree that the older, smaller athletes would have been severely disadvantaged by their lack of size as they actually existed?
That doesn't make athletes of the past any less talented than athletes now. And you didn't answer the question. You put the 'old boys' prime today and many would totally dominate. And if you put the modern athletes back 50 some odd years they wouldn't dominate, or not dominate as much. Hey you're right, most moderns wipe the floor with the oldies for obvious reasons but you simply can't make such a broad case. Eras matter John! It boggles my mind that so many sports fans, in effect, p i s s on past hall of famers, saying they couldn't compete now simply because they were born in a different era!!! :verysad:verysad
I'm not really a fan of Ibeabuchi, but I can't see Walcott being the one to expose him if he was on the verge of losing to Rex Layne. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk