Mickey Walker vs. Kid Gavilan

Walker, because he was greater.

 

I think I'll have to go with Gavilan in this one.

Walker was the greater fighter, largely due to his toughness which allowed him to compete succesfully against much bigger guys, but at welterweight, where he'll have to deal with the Kid's quickness and caginess, it might just be a bit too much for him. That said, in light of Carmen Basilio nearly beating Gavilan, I'd give Mickey a decent chance of snatching the win in a bout that follows a similar trajectory.

 

Walker hit harder than Carman, and Walker was BETTER. If Carman(Who won that fight imo) can bring the Kid to the edge, I think Walker will finshing it.

 

Walker was never a hard hitter. He won't be able to even knock Kid down, even more so to "finish him". If somebody's gonna get stopped here, it can only be Walker, although the more likely result is gonna be points victory for Gavilan.

 

Walker had a impressive ko over Milligation though. I belive Walker can hit hard.

 

Newspaper reports about him from around ww stage of his career don't mention him as particularly hard hitter, at least from what I read.

 

Then how come none of his oponents over 200lbs made it out of the first couple of rounds?

Realisticaly you have to say that as a welter/middle he was about as hard a hitter as there has ever been.

 

Bearcat Wright anyone? An oversight or a fib?

Well tell me in depth how he stopped the few heavyweights (BUT ONE LOL) he faced so quickly yet was far from a stoppage machine (especially early rounds) from welter to the 150's vs far smaller opponents?

Did the big men he fought absolutely suck?

Walker is a great great fighter and hard puncher but he ain't as hard a hitter as there's ever been at 147 - 160.

 

He knocked out no one with a pulse at welter though. He may have hit hard, but if he hit as hard as you're suggesting, there'd be better KO stats to show for it.

 

Your typing errors are comedy gold

Gavilan wins this though. He may have been the 'flash' of the two, but Gavilan could war with anyone. He had elite stamina & durability to match his speed and skill*, and above all he was extremely fierce when challenged. I wouldn't pick many, if any, to beat Gavilan in a brawl.

*I actually think Gavilan was better for his raw physicalities or mentalities (stamina, speed, durability, heart, aggressiveness) than his 'skill.' I thought he was only a good boxer, rather than a great one. But his boxing skills (better than Basilio's, Walker's, Armstrong's, worse than Robinson's, Griffith's, Hearns') were helped massively by the aforementioned attributes; his faster punches would beat his opponent's to the mark, his extreme stamina meant he could fight harder for longer, the stone chin held up against almost any bombing, and Gavilan's mindset meant that, on his best night at least, he would fight to the end with passion and vigor unrivalled.

Notable fighters I pick Gavilan to beat: Thomas Hearns, Mickey Walker, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross, Joe Walcott, Ted 'Kid Lewis, Jimmy McLarnin. 50/50 with Emile Griffith, 40/60 with Jose Napoles.

 

Walker wins

 

Gavilan doesnt beat Lewis , imo ,one thing you didnt mention about Gavilan ,is his power or lack of i t comparatively speaking ,Walker was a great fighter ,imo but he didnt do much at welter,Gavilan was special but Im not even sure he is the second best Cuban welter.

 

Do you think Rodriguez was better then?

Regarding Gavilan's power, I thought it was fine. He probably hit harder than we give him credit for, and certainly had enough in his gloves to stun and hurt.