How would Walcott be if he came along in the 90s and got the same "medicine" that Holyfield did?

The politics of the era would have helped him far more than the medicine ever could.

He would have had a manager, and good financial backing, from the outset of his career.

He woudl have been a lot more marketable than he was in his own era.

I am almost certain that he would have held some sort of title at a much younger age.

As for the medicine, he could certainly have filled out to say 210 - 215, without losing a step, and he was already a very strong fighter at 200.

The final wild card, is would his style even have been the same?

Walcott's style was developed by a part time fighter, trying to overcome much better prepared, sometimes world class opponents.

A trainer in the 90s, would have seen that there was nothing wrong with his power of his chin, and taken him down a very different route.

 

Holyfield KO Walcott

 

He would have done well but his chin wouldn't be better with the medicine. Unlike Holyfield who had a great chin. He would likely win some kind of a belt in the 90's.

 

Think he'd do very well,in parts.
He'd put some great performances on one fight then maybe look awful in his next.
But at his best...look out!!

 

Forget about any medicine.

Just give Old Jersey Joe some decent food.

Give him a couple of T bones with side fries and salad, and he would give Holyroid all he could handle.

 

Only medicine Joe needed was his mob ties.

Once he hooked up with a connected manager, he was going to be given title shots until he finally won one.

 

Well steroids do work so yeah

 

In fairness he was given those title shots for a reason.

 

Wasn't anybody else mob connected back then

 

He did get the same medicine Holyfield got in the 90s. Unlimited title shots. Walcott and Holyfield are the mid and late 20th century fighters who were punished least for losing fights. Like a video game when you lose you respawn and try again.


Walcott fought in the smallest era mostly but he fought on the backend of the previous era and his losses to Simon and Ettore show how that would have gone. The biggest thing that Holy has that Walcott did not is an iron chin. Walcotts chin wasn't enough to face off with depowered Louis, Marciano and Rex Layne. Its not going to be good enough for Bowe, Lennox, Old George, Tyson, Bruno etc. In his mid 40s Holyfields almost beating a guy who outweights him 95 pounds.

 

1 and 2 sure. 3,4 and 5 were pretty egregious. Especially in conjunction with each other.

It wasn't Walcotts fault but this was the IBC 1 belt era. Meaning those rematches came at a higher cost to the division. Above all Clarence Henry who era for era is probably the best HW to never even get a title eliminator. Its the big reason why the Saudis making the sport 1 belt is going to be a disaster. Rematches are going to be a problem. People want undisputed so bad they don't look at what undisputed looks like.

 

Let's take them in turn.
1: He get's a shot against Louis, because he is Louis's #1 contender.
2: He gets a rematch because the result was controversial.
3. He is in the fight for the vacant title, because he is the #1 contender.
4. He gets a rematch that he perhaps didn't deserve, because he was the #1 going into the previous fight, but the result is controversial.
5. He destroys the champion in emphatic fashion.
6. The champion gets his rematch, but Walcott does enough to impress the judges,

 

1.Fair enough
2.Agreed.
3.I don't agree with Walcott getting the bye to fight the tournament winner coming off 2 losses. I understand the thinking he did well against Louis and Louis is retiring.
4.That he lost to Rex Layne in clear fashion? No.
5.The scorecards read almost lopsided decision and Walcott got knocked down. Its his 2nd loss to Charles. Walcott didn't get beaten badly or anything at best its borderline close fight.
6.Nope.

I actually undercounted how many shots he got there were 6 not 5. Lol.

Individually 3-6 aren't the end of the world when you put them together they are pretty egregious.

 

Him and Charles wee the top two ranked contenders with Ring Magazine, and as far as I can tell, every relevant sanctioning body.

I don't see much choice for the sanctioning bodies there.

Yes, but Charles gave him the unnecessary rematch, and many people thought that Charles lost.

It was called the "why fight" by parts of teh media, but others were agitating for it.

In the end we found out why.

That is all moot if a knockout happens.