It’d go to points, I’m sure. I’m not sure about the outcome. My feeling is that Walker’s natural aggression might help Hagler to pick his shots and build up a points lead. But I think Walker would keep it close and competitive throughout. Honestly, I think this would be one of Hagler’s toughest middleweight fights - something akin to the Duran fight. But it’s hard to judge because there’s not a lot of footage of Walker. I think Hagler would be favoured to win but it would be a really hard fight even if he did.
I agree that it goes to points, but I think I'd have Walker winning. He's like a bigger version of Duran, and we all know how Hagler struggled with him.
I don't know much about Walker but didn't he beat beat Jack Sharkey? I think he fought Max Schmeling also but was ko'd. If he can get in the ring with 2 heavyweight champs, wouldn't he be a monster against Hagler?
I'd favor Hagler's polish here but it's not out of the question Walker just keeps on coming and makes it close or even pips it at the end. Walker is by no means as skillful as Duran but he is just relentless. What a great matchup this would be. Plot twist - Hagler cuts.
I rate Mickey Walker highly (#12 all time p4p). He drew with Jack Sharkey in what, imo, is one of the most remarkable results in boxing history. The logic you apply can work both ways, though. i.e. "Imagine what a top 3 ATG MW would do to a guy who lost back to back to 146lbs Pete Latzo & 143.5lbs Joe Dundee". I rarely make picks in fantasy matches between boxers from vastly different eras, as there are too many unknown variables. This uncertainty is compounded when 1 of the fighters is Mickey Walker, who had far more success moving up through the weights than makes sense to me. Aside from the quality of a fighter & where they're at relative to their prime, there are 2 factors I think impact on how successful boxers are moving up in weights: 1) Size - Are they already a tank at their weight or are they a skinny guy with the frame of a much bigger fighter? e.g. Tommy Hearns did well moving through the weights, partly because he was so good, but also because he had the frame of a LHW/CW that he could grow into; 2) Style - Boxers whose style is based around hitting & not getting hit, generally do better moving through the weights than pressure fighters or punchers. Mickey Walker's career made a mockery of my above logic. At 5ft 7ins he was already a tank at WW & his style was predicated on getting inside, outmuscling and outworking his opponents. His frame & fighting style meant he shouldn't have travelled well up through the weights. Yet, whilst he was a very good WW, he arguably was not an ATG WW based purely on his work in that division. I wouldn't expect a very good, but not quite ATG WW, who had at best an average sized frame for a WW & whom relied on being the physically stronger fighter, to have much success moving up the weights, and certainly not above MW. However, Walker went on to draw with #3 HW Jack Sharkey, beat arguably top 10 HW contenders King Levinksy & Paulino Uzcudun. He beat former LHW world champions Mike McTigue & Paul Berlenbach. Beat LHW champion & borderline ATG LHW Maxie Rosenbloom in a non title fight. Took top 10 ATG Tommy Loughran to an SD.
This is not true. They are basically the same size. I don't mean to jump on you, but this forum is bad at sizing. Duran and Walker are the same height and of the same reach. Duran was comfortable at 135lbs for longer, but Walker was boxing at around that poundage when he turned pro. Most of all, weight making is a science by the 1970s and it just wasn't in Walker's era. Walker is probably a little heavier naturally but there's very little in it, he's certainly not "much bigger."
Fair, although I would still assess that Walker was a bigger version of Duran (oversimplification of his style but still) and for that reason alone would have a very good chance of winning.
Basically the same size ? a little heavier naturally? But Walker was naturally 10 - 15 pounds heavier than the BW Duran ,, wasnt he ? Walker was a thick , thus the a lot more natural weight ..... no? I get the height and reach comparison .. but body type I see different. I do agree with was not " much bigger "
