wilde is timeless for he is the standard for which every flyweight is compared..his legacy continiues to grow with age..i believe that the same thing would go with calzaghe..50 years from now, he would still be top 100 while dela hoya, pryor and trinidad may barely make it.. still, i have no problem with walker ahead of hagler..the best position i could have him is top 20..right now, he still sits in my 21 spot. just on 2nd thought, do ATG and all-time p4p mean the same thing to you?
I don't rate Walker as high as most because I think he is that type of fighter that didn't have THAT great a level of skill, which meant that he was never dominant in his own weight class where he was facing the most skilled guys. Walker is primarily great because he was such a hard ******* that he was able to compete well with much bigger guys, who of course, given the higher weight, were not as skillful as the guys at the lower weights. He's somewhat similar to Emile Griffith and Joe Walcott in that sense. They both could hang with guys that were bigger because they were so tough and strong, but in their own weight class they could get owned by the Lavigne's, Rodriguez's and Napoles. Faced with bigger lumbering guys they were fine because their less than exquisite skill wouldn't get exposed. Mickey Walker, in a way, is a better version of James Toney for me. Some people rave about Toney hanging with heavyweights, and that's all well and good, but in his prime weight Roy Jones shut that ass down and he would have done it every time. Simply too much skill for a Toney to handle. Likewise, put in Walker with skilful welterweights and I think he gets beaten pretty comfortably. Even someone like Whitaker, who is not really a great welter, would probably lead him a merry dance.