Good question! It's a tricky equation as to who was actually the better fighter, leaving aside the style clash for the moment. You can go back-&-forth on advantages & disadvantages here. Power, Walcott. Combination-punching, Holyfield. Endurance, Walcott. Durability, Holyfield. Defense, Walcott. On & on. From a stylistic perspective, I feel the battle swings in Walcott's favour. The inferior Michael Moorer showed (albeit against a less-than-100% Holyfield) how good positioning & ring movement --- without necessarily dancing, or back-peddling --- could frustrate Holyfield offensively. Holyfield loves a skirmish & he loves a man who is there to be hit. The truth of the matter is Walcott simply won't be there a good percentage of the time, & when he is, he's got the heavier shot (at least in his left), & a better outside game. On Holyfield's side is he is unlikely to be seriously wounded by Walcott, but I think he can dent Walcott a little easier. Though not a great puncher at Heavy, Holyfield still had his combinations, handspeed, & a snappy left hook. I can't honestly see him stopping Walcott, but he could score a knockdown which might prove important in the scoring. To Walcott's end, I think he's going to make Holyfield miss more often than vice-versa. The shuffle & the front-leg switch were moves Holyfield never had to contend with, & Walcott was a fine chap at getting into position for the counter-shot. Given Holyfield was hardly tough to hit at the best of times, it's not difficult to envision Walcott piling up points. This could be a fight determined on the rounds. Holyfield's stamina never fully transferred from Cruiser to Heavy. He sometimes took rounds off, even over twelve rounds. Fifteen wouldn't favour him at all. A possible fence-sitter, this one, but give me Walcott (tentatively) on points. I will say Holyfield deserves a higher placing historically, though.
Holyfield wins soundly. Walcott can't hold him off, and at close Holy's combinations would eventually break him down. I can't think of many fighters from the history below 200 lbs (yes, I mentioned weight again) who I pick over prime Holy
Strange, I was thinking about posting this one the other day. I'm gonna lean towards Walcott, but fuck this would be some fight.
This is a tough one for me. Walcott had every trick in the book..and that left hook of his was unpredictable and deadly. Walcott was a great boxer and had very decent handspeed...add to that unending stamina and he's a disaster for anyone. He had arguably beat Louis (albeit an older version) in their first fight and was winning the second fight at the time he was stopped. The question here is whether Evander Holyfield could hurt him enough to stop him. It's possible..especially the Bulked up Evander who beat Riddick bowe. Pre-Bowe Holyfield may not have been able to hurt Walcott..enough to stop him...as Jersey Joe was a man who took every bomb from Marciano in a back and forth war for 13 rounds. I don't think Walcott stops Evander either...but it's conceivable that he could outwork him. Anyway...I think Evander wins a close decision....Walcott throws and lands more punches...but Evander causes more damage.
Charles, for mine, would be the closest comparative adversary to Holyfield for Walcott. What about from Holyfield's perspective? Walcott was pretty unique --- any suggestions?
No suggestions from me. Can't think of a Holyfield opponent that was anything remotely like Walcott...
Old Holmes was definitely the nearest comparison, IMO. In watching that Im more sure Walcott would beat him. The way Holyfield rushes in and fights in in an out spurts is just a beautiful recipe for Walcott to set traps and time those sneaky counters. Walcott's positioning & 'ring generalship' was really something Holyfield has never, ever seen. The second nearest comparison is probably Chris Byrd and Holyfield looked AWFUL in that, even before the shoulder injury. (please everyone, don't bother pointing out he was old, aka the bleeding obvious :) ) Walcott 10-4, including a KD.
