Walcott lost a third of his fights. It's common sense he could lose to Beterbiev given his massive level of inconsistency. Not really complicated As for Beterbiev being better than Layne we have film, common sense, and the fact that Beterbiev isn't losing to guys like Roland lastarza and Harry Matthews
It's also common sense on their best night Walcott could win aswell Beterbiev doesn't have that many stand out wins and his big win over Bivol has a major asterisk over it that alot felt he lost. Walcott may be inconsistent at times but he also has considerably better wins beating historically great fighters.
If Beterbiev gets to be in a one, so does Walcott. It's plain and simple. The well trained Walcott who showed for his title fights toys with Beterbiev before KOinh him. And I'm not saying he couldn't lose to Beterbiev, I'm saying he's not a favourite. Sure, he might not lose to Matthews or Lastarza, but he's also not beating guys like Charles or Walcott. I think you've got a big misunderstanding about the losses of the era. All fighters lost then, which is #1 why Marciano is so special, and #2, why you have to look at the positives of a fighters career. Beterbiev hasn't lost, because he's faced two good opponents (at a push, the better of which he probably should've lost to), and he gets months of preparation for every fight. That's simply not the same as guys who 75 years ago.
I'd first like to see Beterbiev convincingly beat Bivol before I entertain him beating men who are anywhere from 25-70 lbs heavier--many of whom hit significantly harder than anyone he's faced at 175.
Those big men consistently lost to much smaller men which makes the size argument unconvincing. Bivol would be an overwhelming favorite given their numerous defeats to smaller men lacking the talent of Bivol. Beterbiev was 39 vs Bivol so why are people focusing on it?
He wouldn't go winless. But it would go very badly for him against that SOS. Don't think he wins 20% of Louis's title fights.