23 views and has been on here for a day but no one's replied. Wasn't expecting that. I can't make an educated predicition because I haven't seen enough of either one (the reason I wanted to see what every one else thought), but I'll go with Walcott. Not even any real reasoning behind it, but I generally rate him about two or three spots higher all-time. Just want to see what everyone else says.
You could make a case that both are top 10 all time P4P. I personally have Walker in my top 10 with Walcott in my top 15. Both were the definition of P4P. Walcott probably even moreso in reality, being a 5'1 WW facing and KO'ing the top HW's of his day. However, he'd be outsized against a similarly strong, durable, attacking fighter in Walker. I find it hard to make an educated guess as well, considering there is no footage of Walcott to judge from, but I'll say this, it would be a hell of a war.
It's a good point that Walker could be too big for Walcott considering their styles were apparently similar, I don't know of anything saying Walcott was a hgih skilled boxer, and I'm pretty sure Mickey could take most of Walcott's shots, despite how prolific the brutality of his punches are. The lack of footage does hurt the thread, like trying to say who wins between Greb and Fitzsimmons. If the fight went by today's rules, only 12 rounds, do you think it will affect the fight and the outcome as far as who wins?
The 12 to 15 round distance probably favors Walker, as he was accustomed to fighting these types of distances moreso, whereas Walcott fought in the days of the 20-25 rounders. Not sure how much it would favor Walker though given the type of puncher Walcott was. This isn't a fight I can come to any real conclusion given the lack of footage, other than that it'd be a war.
Imo yes. The 12-round limit always helps the more modern fighter due to their style beeing made for the shorter distances while the style of the old-timers is more suited for long distances. So, if there is no KO, i think the shorter distance would favour Walker due to him beeing used to the 15 rounds distance. Can´t say much about this fight, just read about them and watched the Schmeling - Walker fight and so i don´t think i´m qualified to give a proper answer. But i rate them both pretty high, Walker is my number 6 while Walcott is my number 11. Would be a great fight i think.
Both guys were super tough ... I have a hard time seeing a 5'1" guy doing all Walcott did but by all accounts he was super strong, tough, hard hitting and extremely good ... near impossible to hurt ... Langford said the hardest shot he ever took was from Joe Walcott ... who knows ???
I'll have to join in here, as i can see you guys have had a go. Very difficult as you lot have already stated, a real FIGHT this would be, Walker would be coming right at a big puncher though is one thing i can say of this fight. But Mickey's combos were really good and quite fast, well put together, especially when he had someone right in front of him, he may not be able to miss. I have Walker above Walcott slightly in my WW list. But i think i'll pick Walcott on the basis that he will be able to whack away at his come forward target. I wouldnt like to set that in stone at all, just thought i'd have a go at it!
Depends on the rules and how many rounds, they are both great fighters but I'd probably lean towards Walcott I'm not sure if being very aggressive against him would work too well.
