Billy Walker and John L. Gardner were two notable British heavyweight fighters from the 1970s and early 1980s. Walker was known for his charisma and solid technique. Though he never captured major world titles, he was a popular figure in British boxing and earned the nickname "Golden Boy" for his style and appeal. Gardner, on the other hand, was a more powerful and aggressive fighter with strong knockout ability. He won British and European titles and was considered a serious contender on the international stage. In terms of style and achievements, Gardner was more successful in winning titles and showcased more power, while Walker made his mark with skill and personality.
This one would definitely not go the distance. I envisage knockdowns from both men and it's probably just about level on points before one of them ends it around the halfway mark. A sort of downgraded Foreman-Lyle type bout.
Hi Buddy. Firstly welcome to the forum, it's always good to have fresh input, and new and different opinions, long may you stay, and look forward to more postings and reflection's from your goodself, on this particular topic, the fighters, and their style and merits, I would politely beg to differ on your appraisal of the style and standing of both fighters, firstly Gardner, he might have been more powerful than Walker, if so not by much I would say, they were both not really looked at or considered " powerful " in the true sense of the word, ala Foreman, Liston, Lewis, etc, well conditioned, with abundance of stamina yes, aggressive attacking fighters yes, powerful ! not so sure, also despite his high percentage ratio, Gardner was not a KO artist, and didn't really have KO ability, generally speaking, he was more of a grinder, a volume puncher in the style of the Lawless stable, if you look at his box rec stats, there are more TKOs than actual knockouts, agreed he was a good British and European fighter, as to him being seen as a serious contender, not so sure, Dokes put him in his place in no uncertain terms, regarding Walker again I would say he was not a true KO puncher, as the terms would suggest, but a hurtful and persistent hitter that was hard to discourage, and with all the respect I can muster, he was not noted for his skill, far from it, he was a face first walk forward puncher, with an abundance of grit and courage, too much on some occasions, his brother George was a brave cornerman, just my take on both fighters, aired in a friendly and polite way i would hope, not meant as a put down to your thoughts, far from it, as you will see, I respect all and every posters opinions and observations, always have, always will. in closing, would wish you all the best, and look forward to many interesting and informative post. stay safe lavalet, chat soon buddy. Mike.
Walker had no skill,or technique, he was a face first, come forward brawler,with a decent right hand that good boxers could see coming. Never good enough to be British Champ or serious Euro title contender,his Brother George was a better fighter than Billy,who was a sucker for a jab. Though never world class , and never ranked Gardner , at least won the British, Commonwealth, and Euro titles. Gardner was the better boxer, with better defence ,he would wear Walker down ,and stop him.imo.
