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

I think you need to view the fight George had with a similar sized slugger Luis Faustino Pires. Of course 31-0 George won, but he looked rather tired and breathless against the 18-7 Brazilian. against a better fighter one could not rule out stamina being an issue there.

In fact the great writer Peter Wilson, initially a great fan of George in the Olympics, wrote-

"George Foreman was having his 16th professional fight in just under 8 months, against the Argentinian Gregorio Peralta, then nearly thirty five. It turned out to be only his third fight to go the distance. In this case ten rounds. I could not legitimately quarrel with the verdict, which was strongly in favour of Foreman, I made it much closer, and I think had I been able to watch more closely I should have been less surprised that I was some four years later by Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clays victory over Foreman."

These kind of examples, the Pires fight, the pacing of the Lyle fight, the Young fight and the Ali fight all kind of show that bludgeon alone was not always going to be enough with George. Yes Ali was a great fighter, but this idea that Foreman has to be the one example of a guy good enough to bowl over everyone before his stamina runs out was not proven in his own time.

 

With Tunney and Liston, Walcott absolutely has a legitimate shot. I'd give him a good chance at beating Dempsey.

 

Talking pre Ali George won all his fights.

You can attack just about anyone's record if you want to look hard enough and go at them. Ali has Henry Cooper, Tyson has Tillis, they've all got their lesser performances.

Foreman beat Pires while never looking like he was ever going to lose. It was a scrappy affair and both tired but on the night that mattered Foreman rolled him. One can speculate if so and so was there but it brings in an entirely different set of circumstances too.

Pires was Foreman's 4th fight in 6 weeks and he'd fought just 3 weeks earlier. He was obviously looking to stay busy. He would hardly be having 4 fights in 6 weeks coming into a big fight.

Peralta was a wily campaigner who'd really been around the block and was extremely experienced. In his previous fight he'd actually taken Bonavena to draw. At the time Bonavena was a top 4 heavyweight. Peralta was at the bottom of the top 10 contenders when Foreman beat him. That's not a bad effort in your 16th fight.

When push come to shove he battered Frazier and Norton clean off their feet.

Stamina was always going to be a potential issue for George. He wasn't exactly blessed with it. The thing is even if he coasted he still tired. If he coasted there was much more chance his opponent would be there when he did start tiring.

Realistically he was best keeping the pressure on early and getting them out of there. He cut the ring off very well and not many would have got thru the offensive he launched at Ali that night in Zaire.

Against fellow greats his chances lessen the further the fights go on, mostly. It's up to the individual how many guys get thru the early storm and takes him. Tyson was similar in that once you got thru the early segments it was a lot easier to survive/thrive/whatever.

I'm not going to get into any long drawn out circular debate as i've posted more than enough already.

 

Are you people really considering a 38 year old Walcott here?

And are you remembering that, all excuses aside, the man did lose 18 times in 71 fights.

Things seem to have gone off the rails a bit here.

 

Muy bien dicho joder!!. Yeah i said it in spanish

 

Maybe. You have to remember, he hit his prime later than most. A 37 year old KO'd cold a prime Ezzard Charles. So yes, he could've been better than a prime Machen.

 

Norton beating Walcott is no way a sure thing. He'd have given Holmes a good fight, though it would benefit him to be a few years younger. Quite frankly, I think the Walcott of the 1st Marciano fight would've put up a better effort against Ali than that version of Liston did.

 

Are you remembering that a THIRD of those losses are to Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, and Rocky Marciano? All 3 of which are certified atgs. Not to mention his first 8 losses came at a time when he was living on welfare with a family to feed. And at least three of those losses during his comeback were disputed.

Question. Do you think Walcott was prime after 1944?

 

I would give Walcott a "cuties chance" against anybody.

I never thought much of the proverbial "punchers chance", but a fighter like Walcott really does always have a chance!

 

That’s a good point you make about Norton’s track record against movers/technicians. You forget one thing though. Walcott hit much harder than those three and we know all about Norton’s track record against Punchers.

Lorenzo Zannon boxed Ken’s ears off until he got caught. It was not like nobody could not outbox Norton either.

 

He had one great fight left in him and he was done. I think that first Marciano fight took it out of Walcott. It was a tough, grueling fight that ended with him taking one of the most brutal shots to end it. He did go for a payday in the rematch but he sat down pretty fast.

 

Thanks for the perspective. Jersey Joe had a unique career for sure. He was supposed to go with Blackburn and Louis but I believe he got sick at the wrong time. How that altered his career.