BoxRec

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

evrenb wrote: #I would say Tyson was stockier - heavier chest, bigger around the thighs and butt imo

Hard to imagine that gives Tyson a 20 pound weight advantage. Not sure about the chest. Didn't think about the but, I have to admit. Have always thought that Walcott had to have weighed more than the scales showed. Just look at the guy.

There is a lot of weight on muscle around the thigh and butt area...

I'm a good 30lbs heavier than my brother, who looks bigger than me but it's all in the legs and glutes. He's a 28 waits im a 32 and twice the size in thighs and calves.

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

evrenb wrote: #I would say Tyson was stockier - heavier chest, bigger around the thighs and butt imo

Hard to imagine that gives Tyson a 20 pound weight advantage. Not sure about the chest. Didn't think about the butt, I have to admit. Have always thought that Walcott had to have weighed more than the scales showed. Just look at the guy.

There is a lot of weight on muscle around the thigh and butt area...

Literally everywhere else Walcott looks bigger and is more defined.
Look at walcott against Louis. He looks clearly bigger.
If he was listed at 220 it's hard to believe would anyone bat an eye.

Tyson would lose a couple of rounds then ko walcott.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Literally everywhere else Walcott looks bigger and is more defined.
Look at walcott against Louis. He looks clearly bigger.
If he was listed at 220 it's hard to believe would anyone bat an eye.

Ambling Alp. You have the world's most sloppily calibrated eyes for determining weight and ability of boxers... Walcott was a very small Heavyweight who lost to feather punching Light Heavyweight Joey Maxim. He didn't appear to be much bigger and stronger than Maxim though he had him by 12 pounds.

When Mike Tyson squared off with 212-pound Michael Spinks, the size difference in shoulders, biceps, and forearms was palpable... Tyson looked massive.

Walcott was skinny and the size difference would be stark -- like it was for 215-pound Sonny Liston vs 194-pound Floyd Patterson.

Tyson was bigger than Walcott. He was at least 20 pounds heavier yet shorter and no doubt much more powerful.

Brutally one-sided contest. Walcott does no better than Marvis Frazier did against Tyson.

Kalan wrote:
Walcott was skinny

Where do you come up with this crap?

Sidney Carton wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Walcott was skinny

Where do you come up with this crap?

Kalan is skinny in tha head

Sounds like your head has been subjected to too much of the following: resulting in too much down time

Sidney Carton wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Walcott was skinny

Where do you come up with this crap?

Context doofus ... Walcott wasn't skinny compared to Tommy Hearns, who was taller -- but compared to the 5'11" X 218 Mike Tyson he would look very skinny.. And that was a 21-year-old Tyson facing facing a 212-pound Michael Spinks who looked frail in comparison.. At 35 Tyson weighed 234 for Lennox Lewis.. Walcott was a Light Heavyweight at 21 and weighed 194 at 35.