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

So every fighter is all of a sudden worthless after his first loss huh? Dumbass?

Who's to say young wouldn't have just moved even more and engaged even less if Foreman had been more agressive, resulting in Foreman gassing out even earlier? Wasn't that the reason he Ali put him down, because he exerted himself too much early against a shelled up guy and gassed out? LOL only in crazyland is learning not to bumrush your opponent a detriment.

 

At 38 and at the tail end of a damaging career, he was? Really? Why didn't he keep at it for some additional paydays?

 

At HW, I extremely doubt it.

I mean he could turn the trick against certain people at the right time, although I suppose that's all he did in his era.

I favour him against very few prime champions but against faded guys he will always have a chance.

The Holmes who lose to Spinks for example, the Lewis who lost to Rahman etc.

At CW he could have dominated imo.

 

True and what the body lacked, Walcott and many other fighters known for longevity made up for it with experience and sills. I mean it should be very clear that Walcott at 38 wasn't nearly as worn down as Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, or most other fighters for that matter that fought past their prime into that age.

I mean, Jack Johnson claimed he got better as he got older rather than regressing and I guess an argument could be made for that with his undefeated streak albeit against a bunch of nobodies after he lost to Willard.

 

Probably because he ran into Marciano. “Why didn’t Klitschko keep at for some additional pay days” - it’s the same kind of thing, except of course Walcott was WAY younger than Klitschko.

 

This is a very good point. Walcott was an extremely well preserved fighter. He always had talent, was always in excellent shape and fought as a spoiler for a lot of his career. Film stands up. It’s only people with an agenda against old timers that have an issue with him. Walcott was great. Sugar Ray Leonard is a huge fan of Walcott.

 

Because anybody with two eyes could see that Wlad had lost a step and a half, that he was sliding into shot. Same as Walcott.

 

You missed Moorer, Old Foreman and Rahman all of whom I think he would beat. Also feel he could beat Tunney prime for prime I'd be confident in that however his older years not sure a pick em. Walcott is a very difficult style for Liston just look at the guys Liston struggled with. Additionally Walcott could beat the Evander that nearly had a heart attack against Moorer.

 

That's why Joe Louis did so badly after the first Schmeling fight.

 

It sure worked ok for Foreman all the way up to Ali. Lots of pressure also worked pretty good for Henry Armstrong, Mike Tyson, LaMotta, Frazier and Harry Greb to name a few out of thousands.

 

Well preserved Veteran fighters who are still winning at world level are often as hard to beat as when they were younger. Remember Bernard Hopkins?

They might do things differently, compensate athleticism for experience, impose a greater economy of work rate then they previously had. Once a great older fighter (who can still beat world class fighters) is controlling the pace the advantage of youth can be vastly reduced.

Maybe you can pick out moments of Joshua v Klitschko (with your two eyes) that demonstrate the step and a half lost where Wlad was sliding into shot? I think it Would be intresting and exciting for us to make these comparisons as well as explain your point.

 

No ****ing way

 

So this ****ing.idiot is saying that rahman would stop walcott but a prime foreman would not . you are a complete joke nerd.
The holyfield that lost to moorer is his worst version why?because he lost? Using the vs moorer version of evander or the vs douglas version of tyson is exactly like using the jimmy young version of foreman.like i said you are cherry picking because you are a biased and ridiculous clown