I honestly don't know. But I think it would be a hell of a great fight. Both men had skill and both could crack when they needed too. Neither had the best set of whiskers but I think Walcott might have been just a tad more durable given that he took quite a few shots from both Louis and Marciano before finally folding. They were comparable in size as well. Ironically they both peaked at opposite ends of their lives. Patterson was in his early 20's and Walcott was in his mid thirties. Both guys had a good left hook, though I think Walcott's was deadlier. Patterson was a bit quicker and maybe even a little busier. Not sure who I'd pick. Think these guys could split a series of fights.
Virtually a draw at the end of 15 rounds, but a victory in points for JJW by dint of two,maybe three knockdowns scored along the way. Floyd would have had much success vs Joe, maybe even hurting him and maybe even a kd of his own, but I think it would be bonus points for Walcott on his kds that would make the difference in a very exciting, entertaining bout.
Well Floyd was a it quicker, more power, better defence and had a better jab. Jersey doesn't have the power to blow him out like Liston so I favour Floyd by UD.
Greetings magoo! Couple of comments. 1) Patterson didn't 'peak' in his early 20's; how can you 'peak' when you're held back from fighting the best out there, many of whom Floyd could have beaten. It could be argued that Floyd was a better fighter AFTER losing his title. How many other Champions can make that claim? Patterson had the fastest combination punching in HW history (which he so often rarely showed us) along with that light's out left hook; not much more except for his grit. 2) IMHO Floyd's left hook trumps Mr. Cream's in spades! I will say that, in prime, it would have been an interesting s c r a p.