I feel like Dempsey has more of a chance here than against Charles, while Walcott may not have got hit as much as Charles per fight, I feel he was more susceptible to being caught with big punches with his unorthodox defence, hands down relying on his feet and movement etc, Charles was tighter with his defence and kept his eyes on his opponent and was better at seeing big punches coming, riding them and kept his hands up better, and could also use his feet as well, it would’ve been harder to land clean on Charles, whereas Walcott has his hands down often and is more susceptible to getting caught on the chin as opposed to glancing blows on the cheeks, forehead etc. Who wins this matchup?
I can’t see Walcott surviving honestly. He won’t have the time & space the far inferior (to Dempsey) Marciano afforded him.
Toledo Jack comes at Walcott and empties the clip quick finishing the fight… I don’t think Walcott lasts with Jack the way he did with Rocky… Jack was less about beating you down professionally as his fights were more a very skilled fight for survival, he’d be too quick and when Walcott starts putting too much out there trying to play keep away Dempsey’s counter opportunities just increase till he stops the show.
“Far inferior” not really no, Marciano was an incredible boxer I don’t think he was far inferior to anyone with his skills.
I’m a little bit torn between the two. On one hand Walcott knew how to give absolute hell to elite punchers. But on the other, most of those performances resulted in losing efforts albeit the most gallant of one’s…. And Dempsey was fast, ferocious and unrelenting. I don’t think I’d want to bet money but I’m leaning towards Dempsey as the slightly safer pick
Really prime hungry young Dempsey takes him out quickly. Comfortable rich Dempsey takes a bit longer. I have enormous respect for Walcott and he's not going to be an easy night for anyone, but he's way ahead of his skis against Dempsey.
That is a bit like calling Joe Frazier, a poor mans Mike Tyson. You are comparing a man who specializes in sustained pressure over the entire fight, to a man who specializes in getting the opponent out of there as quickly as possible. Superficially similar, but different game plans.
That’s fair - I just see them as similar enough to at least compare, though granted, they went for different things.
There is somewhat of a similarity to their styles, though of course not anything exact. But I can compare them I’d say. Dempsey had the better power distribution, about as good a right hand & a substantially superior left, faster, neater footwork, quicker hands & snappier combinations, a more pronounced killer instinct, & not dissimilar heart & whiskers. Endurance is probably the biggest margin between them (if not speed), in Marciano’s favour. He doesn’t have much over Dempsey & would be most likely cut to ribbons by him in a direct encounter, IMO.
Lean towards Dempsey by KO, but Walcott gives him a tough fight, perhaps dropping him along the way. Walcott at his peak, was better than anyone Dempsey defended his title against, including arguably Tunney.
