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

Yes I agree with this. The rematch Walcott was contracted to take a second beating even if he did not want it.

Walcott was a great fighter. He could really do it all. Very well conditioned athlete as well. A marvellous veteran fighter in that his chances came only once he was a full time fighter. His style of fighting, once he perfected it, was one where you could win a fight whilst holding back and saving some of yourself for the next fight. He was classed as a spoiler. A counter puncher. It was not a draining style of fighting. Without being forced into a real slugfest I see no reason why Walcott could not have went on as long as Bernard Hopkins. In another era he would have.

Against Marciano, Walcott was forced to use what he had been holding back so long. He was a defending champion so he used up everything he had been saving. Teddy Brenner said Walcott fought his greatest fight against Marciano. And there was nothing left after it.

 

What could he have been had he gone with Jack Blackburn in `34? Just a lot of bad breaks for Walcott. Great character person to do what he did.

 

Johnson said that he didn't have it against Willard. Where is the primary source for your remark?

 

No fighter is in his prime at 38 years old.

 

Yes, maybe he could have been Joe Louis. He would have gotten the investment and one to one tuition, training camps, nutrition and the right opponents at the right time.

Instead he developed into a spoiler out of necessity in order to stay busy, and that way he probably picked up a lot of stalling tactics becoming a much trickier boxer. During the war years I believe a lot of boxers were just going through the motions. Titles were frozen, there was nothing to aim for. Fighters were often just putting on a show to stay busy. It’s not outrageous to assume that in the war years a lot of glorified sparring sessions went down as legit fights.

Later when wakcott got the finance after the war to be a full time pro he was able launch himself as if from the beginning but with all that he had learned to fall back on.

In all likelihood he reached the level he was destined to anyway just at an older age and it probably made him a bit slicker than he would have been.

 

[url]http://www.boxing.com/jack_johnson_challenges_dempsey.html[/url]

"This 1941 column by former heavyweight champion Jack Johnson was published in The New York Times in response to public boasts by Jack Dempsey"

Where is your primary source for your remark? Or is the burden of proof only on me?

 

How do you think say, a 41 year old Wlad Klitchsko would've done against many prime ATG's? Not bad if you ask me. You need to look at more than just age and look at performance. Like Wlad gave a prime time AJ all he could handle, Walcott gave a prime time Rocky Marciano all he could handle. Or how about a 38 year old Lennox Lewis vs many prime ATG's?

And perhaps Walcott at this stage doesn't get past Norton. But I don't think he'd just get plastered either. Also, when was Walcott's fighting prime? Arguably 33, 34, 35 years old? He was closer to his prime than if he had peaked at say 25.

On the other hand you have a fighter like Mike Tyson who peaked in his late teens, early 20's which is very rare. Tyson at 19, 20, 21 likely could have taken and beaten many ATG's. And a 21 year old Tyson may have beaten ANY ATG if you put him against the 21 year old version of said ATG.

 

Walcott showed perseverance for sure. Did you know that he was the first elected black sheriff of the Camden County Sheriff Department? That was after he lost the election the first time around. Many pushed him to run for mayor of the city of Camden, New Jersey as he had a good chance of winning but he decided politics wasn't for him anymore. The governor of New Jersey later made him chairman of the state's Athletic Comission.

 

my two cents worth--Walcott would have a shot at being champion in any previous era. It is hard to compare to the real old-timers because of the length of the fights, but I would generally favor him in 15 round tilts.

Corbett--I favor Walcott. Just a better boxer with a more dangerous punch.

Fitz--Fitz wasn't all that much younger than Walcott when he defended against Jeff. Fitz's punch makes this a wild card, but Walcott is much bigger and I find off film the cleverer fighter.

Jeff--Jeff always had his troubles with movers and boxers, so Walcott could be a nightmare match-up for him. Over 25 rounds, Jeff probably catches him. Over 15, I don't think so.

Hart--I favor Walcott.

Burns--I Favor Walcott.

Johnson--I take Johnson early in his reign, but the Johnson of 1913 to 1915 was generally out of shape and only fighting sporadically. Walcott at this point would have been a very tough match-up.

Willard--I suppose Willard might edge a finish fight as he did with Johnson. Over 15, I think Walcott easily outboxes him. As for the Willard of 1919, he was only a few months younger than Walcott would be, and was also out of shape and long laid off. I pick Walcott to win easily.

Dempsey--I would favor a young Dempsey to probably catch Walcott, but Dempsey laid off so often and so long it certainly raises questions. Could Walcott beat him over 10 in 1926 as Tunney did? I think that would be the likely result.

Tunney--Tunney was good, but his record is whites only and mainly at light-heavy. Dempsey just came at him and never tried to jab back. Walcott out-jabbed Louis. Certainly Walcott beat someone similar in size and skill to Tunney (Charles). Tunney never fought anyone as big and skilled as Walcott. I would rate this a toss-up at worst.

Schmeling--a see this as more or less a toss-up. Schmeling's stamina would be a real problem for Walcott if he can survive the early rounds.

Sharkey--I favor Walcott strongly over the Sharkey of 1933 who would go on to lose to King Levinsky that year.

Carnera--I think Walcott outboxes him. Primo's only real chance is to wear down the old man with mauling.

Baer--Max was always vulnerable to boxers, so I think it very unlikely he could get a decision. He certainly has a good chance of landing a big one, and his stamina might let him outlast Joe. But the problem with ever picking Baer is what Baer shows up. A clowning, not in the best shape Baer, probably loses.

Braddock--I favor Walcott.

Louis--well, their first fight shows Walcott would have a shot against an older Louis, but not likely.

Charles--Walcott proved he could beat him.

Now later in the century, I think heavies became bigger and better, though I believe Walcott could possibly have made it to champion if the cards fell right for him for most of the previous sixty years.

 

Except of you are walcott or lewis lol