Joe Walcott the ferocious little giant who tackled heavyweights. Standing only 5'1.5". How does he do thrown in against modern 147pounders? By modern I am saying from 1950's onwards.
I like this question. I wish I had an answer. Going by what I've read about him in the past undoubtedly a great fighter. I'm guessing the difference in rules and how much more refs seem to be involved today would make or break the outcome these fights.
Obviously depends on the ref but a 5'2" guy can compete if he's a tank at welter as good as a 5'6" Qwai did against 6' and plus guys at 175 an up .. the pre-injired Walcot was by all accounts a murderous punching, exceptionally strong and gifted fighter ..
Sorry for a bump, but I decided this wasn't worth it's own thread, and it fits well enough here. I think there's a major problem in comparing very early fighters to modern fighters in the same division. And that is often they really aren't the same division. The limits in the past were inconsistent and often lower. I saw George Dixon fought for a 115Ibs featherweight title, clearly at that stage it would make more sense to compare him to a flyweight. While this isn't as extreme at the higher divisions they've still been changed about, and the weigh ins have also been changed, which allows fighters to drain down much more. I'm sure I heard early on they had to weigh in in their trunks before the fight. And there are stories of Harry Greb and Jack O'Brien having to do workouts to make weight after failing it, right before a fight. Add in too that fighters often fought above their best weights because there was more money in. Middleweights fought as Heavyweights, Welter weights fought as Middleweights etc. So in some ways it might be fairer to compare them to fighters in lower divisions in H2H match ups, you'd have to use your judgement as to how much. Then again, I still don't think there's any of the current crop of Welters I'd favour over Walcott.
Without film, it is difficult to make detailed predictions about how he would match up against certain welterweights, but it is probably fair to say that he would have had considerable success. As a puncher and a finisher, he probably only had one peer in the history of the division, and that is Tommy Hearns.
Those guys would defend a title or fight top contenders twice inside 6 or 8 weeks!! They thought nothing of fighting an ATG fighter 4,5,6 times ! Add to that the gloves which looked like mittens and you had rough men in the ring
Not to mention longer fights, and generally much rougher living conditions, that require more physical activity. Though a lot of modern athletes also come from poverty.
I don't believe toughness or heart/guts, or whatever you want to call it, is something that is restricted to certain eras. It's something you're either fortunate to have - or something that just happens to be missing. You know, like punching power. Either you have it, or you don't.
Couldn't agree with Reinhardt more .. Most are usually a product of the environment .. And what brought about this more and is so much different from boxing now then before is Activity .. You had to be tough and have heart to fight in the old days or you just wouldn't survive, and a lot outside the ring as well .. Fighters are coddled today and fight what twice a year
