An unbelievable war. Can't pick a winner. Walker fought bigger guys so might even be stronger than Tiger, who had immeasurable strength. Both ridiculously tough, both hit well.
Tough pick, these are two very tough men. I was leaning toward Tiger when I looked again at Walkers record. Wow, how to pick anything on 2 legs south of 160 against that? Herb Goldman and Charley Rose both saw them live and rated Walker slightly higher. I will also but I have to admit in a single fight it will likely be a disputed SD anyway it goes :good
Walker-Hudkins II: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72JmkThYXZ8[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAYJN6DJ8FI[/ame] I think Mickey had the skills and versatility to do the same thing with Tiger, move back and catch Dick coming in for a clear decision.
Tiger was the strongest 160 fighter that ever lived but Waker was a better fighter and would have decisioned him ...
Walker is supposed to be carrying Hudkins here. In other words, the only time he showed this type of boxing on film, he was doing it to avoid KOing his opponent. Seems he had the technical skill but not the tendency. But then, perhaps that is not the truth of the matter. Regardless, Tiger is a better boxer and a much more natural counter-puncher. I think he'd need to out-monster Tiger with violence.
Walker. When at his best he was just a better fighter overall than Tiger. Would be a great, exciting fight though.
Eh, I've never agreed with that one, McGrain. Ace took Mickey right through Dante's Hell in their first fight and Mick came within a hair of losing. He knew that in order to beat Ace convincingly in fight two that he was going to have to change tactics and not try and beat the "Nebraska Wildcat" at his own game. Mickey boxed rather than slugged, not to carry Ace but to make sure he beat him clearly with minimul risk to himself. BTW, most newspaper accounts reported how "stale" and "overtrained" Hudkins looked rather than how much it appeared as if Mickey was carrying him. Ace had his marginally-experienced brother train him and as such was frequently stale in fights. This particular criticism appeared after several of Hudkin's fights.
I'll agree with this assessment. Tiger's punches look shorter and more accurate...Walker has better footwork. I've always considered Tiger to be the strongest at 160...but if there is anyone RIGHT there with him it's the Toy Bulldog. If someone points a gun at me...Walker by decision. Both would problably split a series...BTW I think Walker at middleweight was a better at middleweight than welterweight...more experienced and stronger.
And it ought to be recalled that Mickey defeated the barrel chested bull strong Uzcudun while weighing 170, conceding a 30 pound pull, easily the lightest and shortest man to defeat Paulino. If the Basque Woodchopper couldn't do it with strength, I can't see Tiger or anybody else at 160 doing it on the basis of strength. Speed, skill and/or experience were required when Walker was in his prime. Having a significant height and reach advantage didn't hurt. I just think Mickey has too much versatility here.
