Could the 38 year old walcott who fought rocky win the belt in other eras?

Young was not the fighter Walcott was BUT he was much fresher and more mobile than Walcott. Walcott would have to take alot of shots on the arms and body that young could just get out of the way of.
However the notion that Foreman was a different fighter post Ali is BS Ali was just the first non Taylor made contender he fought,and the ones that came after him were more confident as a result of the embarrassing loss in Zaire. But Foreman himself hadn't lost any of the size, strength or punching power that made him so dangerous.

 

Stop talking .Crap the mental part is very important in boxing, an undefeated fighter is a very different fighter

 

There's infinite cases of fighters not being the same after their first loss. Donald Curry is just one of them.

 

'A' belt, absolutely. 'The' belt is a different concept, still very very likely especially in earlier eras

 

Where is the proof of that being the case for foreman? He still took out frazier again, and who is to say he wouldnt have still had trouble with lyle and young? So what exactly is the supposed magic ingredient that he had before zaire? Because whatever it is, it didnt win him the Ali fight and once he "lost it" he still beat Frazier easily and would most likely still blow out Norton who lost early against every dynamite puncher he fought.
Please point out on film the exact changes, deterioration in the way foreman fought after Zaire?

The only aspect is confidence, a loss of confidence in foreman and an increase in confidence in everyone who fought him afterwards, seeing that the destroyer is not invulnerable.

However i still think post zaire foreman could easily replicate every win he had pre Zaire, since both norton and frazier were taylor made. Just like even a 1996 tyson( who in contrast to post zaire foreman, had very visibly deteriorated in skill and technique) would still bomb out taylor made spinks

 

The change of tempo and tactics are obvious in the Young and Lyle fights, the more conservative approach aimed at better pacing. It's a well known fact that these are the things Clancy and co. were working on. They didn't do George much good imo even if they were orthodox attempts at improvement. The attempt at change worked against him on numerous levels imo.

Your point is a good one regarding the confidence aspect going two ways.

By the time Foreman rematched Frazier Joe had been in two absolute wars with Ali and was almost 3 1/2 years down the track. Many will tell you he never again reached the heights of the first Ali fight (fair) and some will tell you he was declining by the time of the Foreman fight. This is reasonable tho he was still extremely formidable and i think George would have beaten any version regardless.

 

yeh that is true.

Nevertheless, 38 year old man isnt going to be at the level where they can safely outgas a prime top level fighter. With prep, Joshua will focus on fitness and pace and be able to outlast him, whatever happens. Walcott doesnt have that option.

 

Many think Walcott beat Louis in the first fight on points. Walcott was also way ahead in the 2nd fight, and for some reason tried to show boat and got caught. So heck yes he could beat Louis. Without looking I think their ages were even when they fought.

Walcott's toughest match ups were vs. larger punchers who had skill. I do think he would do much better vs Ali than you do, and would make a good showing vs Tunney.

Mostly agree with the rest of what you said. _ Mendoza

Class city Cobra, Walcott's had some of his best performances post Joe Louis. See Charles or Marciano. No doubt Walcott was a great older fighter. No one here would say he wasn't. Walcott didn't have Jack Blackburn teaching him as Louis, Walcott had to develop his game often on his own.

If you think Louis deserved the nod in the first fight, you can say it here. Evidence in the form of many score cards, video ( unfortunately not the fill fight ), and body language of Louis during the decision being announced and the thunderous boos after it was announced ( In Joe Louis MSG mind you ) shows he did not. Walcott corner could not believe it either.

 

Not many. He beats Hart probably. Leon probably. Maybe Braddock but Jimmy was really up and on form for that Baer fight. He was at the tail end of a long and damaging career. There's a reason he retired.

 

Well he moved just as well if not better when he as 38, didn't he? Louis wasn't as swift footed as Marciano was, nor did he have his work rate. I think the Walcott who meet Marciano gives Louis the same problems, maybe even more if he doesn't show boat.

Some fighters are better in their late 30's. You could use Moore, Hopkins or Vitali Klitschko as examples. And Walcott too!

 

Walcott was a superb fighter. Two handed power, durable and technically advanced. He was good enough to have adapted to any era.

 

And confidence is everything for a boxer dumbass. He stopped later a worse version of frazier in 1976.foreman was not the same after his defeat with ali