Walcott vs. Floyd Patterson Prime for Prime

Honestly it could go either way, both have their quirks.

Patterson's physical prime saw him matched a certain way and suffer horrible knockout losses to the two best he faced. His late 60s resurgance is very impressive to me, as results aside I thought he was getting the better of fighters that in a H2H matchup I might've figured would have a good shot at stopping him.

Pretty good longevity when if his career was unfolding today he would be written off and ripped the **** out of on here. He'd be getting some Khan-esque abuse off some ****ers

I'm not saying Liston wouldn't have sparked Floyd early at any point of his career of course. Only that I have come to realise that there are a fair few fighters out there who can be clipped and finished yet aren't fragile or necessarily vulnerable fighters, or who may be vulnerable at different parts of the fight. Masao Ohba for example.

Then there are glass jawed physical deformity types, like Amir Khan, Bernard Dunne, David Price, Roger Mayweather, etc etc etc

Floyd definitely falls into the first category IMO. Walcott was a sneaky beggar, but more often than the not it was the imposing heavy handed types that knocked him about.

So the question is can Walcott outbox Floyd? Is Jersey Joe quicker than Floyd? (No) Is Walcott's timing, experience and ring craft enough to overcome Patterson's speed, power and combination punching. I'm talking champion Floyd here, so everyone who doesn't agree with me that the later version would be a sturdier fellow can still discuss.

I enjoy watching both fighters immensely. I just think Patterson was the better fighter.

 

I would go with Walcott...