Who do you rate highter h2h in the HW division.. Walcott or Floyd

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by KuRuPT, Mar 2, 2017.


  1. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,811
    Aug 26, 2011
    Not really who do you think has the better resume or accomplished more... but

    1. Who do you think would do better against most HW that ever lived.
    2. If they fought prime for prime... Stylistically, which one was more made to order for the other if at all?
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,069
    27,896
    Jun 2, 2006
    1.I think I would go for Walcott to do better against modern heavyweights,say from the 40's onwards[that's modern to old-timers like me.]
    2.I would give Walcott a slight edge head to head ,though Patterson was more consistant.
     
    RockyJim likes this.
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,882
    20,449
    Sep 15, 2009
    I don't rate either at HW, I rank them as CW fighters.

    Walcott is the better fighter for me once he had become a full time fighter anyways.

    H2H I favour Walcott but Patterson had real power and showboating could leave himself open to needless punishment.
     
    joe brown likes this.
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,199
    26,485
    Feb 15, 2006
    It is debatable who was greater, but Walcott would do better head to head overall.

    Walcott's defence makes him a live underdog against anybody, but Patterson would hit a brick wall against some kinds of fighters.
     
    Reinhardt and reznick like this.
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,882
    20,449
    Sep 15, 2009
    I don't think there's any reasonable argument for Patterson beating Baer but I could imagine Walcott pulling the trick
     
    reznick and Hookandjab like this.
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,199
    26,485
    Feb 15, 2006
    That is the sort of thing that I mean.

    Patterson might have done a better job against a realistic heavyweight field, but if you start matching them against the standouts from different eras, you would want your money on the guy who doesn’t meet them head on.
     
  7. Hookandjab

    Hookandjab Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,618
    551
    Feb 19, 2014
    Both men are underrated. I think that JJW would do better against other hwts and I would pick jjw to beat Floyd hth.
     
  8. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    8,129
    1,762
    Jul 1, 2015
    1. Walcott
    2. Patterson
     
  9. RockyJim

    RockyJim Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,209
    2,366
    Mar 26, 2005
    Walcott....good puncher....tough...had his classic,"cakewalk"...
     
  10. frankwornank

    frankwornank Active Member Full Member

    685
    83
    May 11, 2007
    I was always a big fan of Floyd Patterson but I could not imagine him standing up to Marciano for almost 13 rounds as Walcott did. Floyd was about Walcott's size and a harder puncher than Walcott but he didn't have Walcott's ability to avoid shots. Lots of people don't know this about Floyd. He had one leg shorter than the other and he really didn't move that well. He actually had a better chin than most give him credit for but he often got hit clean and suffered a lot of flash knock downs. He was stopped but never counted 10 over.
     
    BCS8 likes this.
  11. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    28,188
    33,858
    Jan 8, 2017
    Both great fighter s in there own way. But Walcott had a bit of magic about him. Ahead of his time and a intelligent fighter.
     
  12. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,382
    17,938
    Oct 4, 2016