View Full Version : Archie Moore vs Walcott: Who had the higher skill set?


Toney616
08-01-2010, 10:18 AM
Can anyone tell me which one? Please give reasons as well
Archie Moore:
http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/Archie_Moore.jpg
Jersey Joe Walcott:
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/walcott-jersey-joe-77.jpg

Ziggy Stardust
08-01-2010, 10:49 AM
Oooooh now THIS is a tough one :cool9:

Poet

Toney616
08-01-2010, 10:51 AM
Oooooh now THIS is a tough one :cool9:

Poet
lmao:rofl::rofl:

Ziggy Stardust
08-01-2010, 10:54 AM
lmao:rofl::rofl:

Seriously! Off the top of my head I'm not sure who I'd edge in this one! :grin9:

Poet

Toney616
08-01-2010, 11:01 AM
Seriously! Off the top of my head I'm not sure who I'd edge in this one! :grin9:

Poet
Im going to have to start sitting down with a piece of paper and making notes on what I see fighters doing. Can you explain what the term "setting traps" means?

Ziggy Stardust
08-01-2010, 11:09 AM
Im going to have to start sitting down with a piece of paper and making notes on what I see fighters doing. Can you explain what the term "setting traps" means?

Well, any fighter is trained to react certain ways when they see an opening. Setting a trap is delibrately giving them an opening knowing exactly how they'll react then countering the reaction. In other words you're setting the opponent up for something he doesn't see coming. Walcott was a master at it. Joe Louis said (and I'm paraphrasing) "When Walcott dropped his left it wasn't a mistake: It was a trap and when you fell for it he'd bring the ceiling down on your head with the counter right".

Poet

Toney616
08-01-2010, 11:15 AM
Well, any fighter is trained to react certain ways when they see an opening. Setting a trap is delibrately giving them an opening knowing exactly how they'll react then countering the reaction. In other words you're setting the opponent up for something he doesn't see coming. Walcott was a master at it. Joe Louis said (and I'm paraphrasing) "When Walcott dropped his left it wasn't a mistake: It was a trap and when you fell for it he'd bring the ceiling down on your head with the counter right".

Poet
Thanks for this

Tiozzo
08-01-2010, 12:04 PM
Well, any fighter is trained to react certain ways when they see an opening. Setting a trap is delibrately giving them an opening knowing exactly how they'll react then countering the reaction. In other words you're setting the opponent up for something he doesn't see coming. Walcott was a master at it. Joe Louis said (and I'm paraphrasing) "When Walcott dropped his left it wasn't a mistake: It was a trap and when you fell for it he'd bring the ceiling down on your head with the counter right".

Poet

Walcott is an underrated counterpuncher

Louis won the second fight because he understood what happened in the first fight : Walcott forced him to lead using his traps and other clever methods such as acting a retreat

in the rematch, Louis was walking in without punching not to get countered, and it worked, cause Walcott was forced to lead a lot more

Sugarj
08-02-2010, 04:42 PM
Oooooooh, yep tough call this one. Archie Moore is clearly a higher rated ATG, possibly even top 10, Walcott would be much lower, but they both did their best work in different weight divisions. Record for record......Moore takes this clearly..........but the question concerns skill sets.

Obviously Moore was an outstanding light heavyweight, one of the best of all time whereas Walcott was a damn good heavyweight who was unfortunate to mix in the Louis/Charles/Marciano era.

Waffle over! As to sheer pound for pound skill sets I'll be controversial and edge Walcott by a smidgen. I think he had better footwork than Moore, a sharper jab, possibly better (pound for pound) hand speed and an even more unGodly use of angles......but it really is so close!

Walcott sadly didn't have quite the punch resistance that Moore did (in a pound for pound sense). With a better set of whiskers Walcott may well have beaten Louis (rightly twice) and Marciano too which would rightly leave his ATG status quite a few points higher. That said, you cant quibble with either of the knockouts in Louis 2 or Marciano 1. Even guys with iron chins might have struggled to hold either of those attacks.

I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that Moore had a better skill set, perhaps I'm a touch swayed by Walcott's flashiness, style and in ring flamboyance. The Walcott waltz and shift were quite entertaining to watch.

Obama
08-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Walcott was slicker and probably more clever but overall his stills were inferior. He also ducked Moore.

Sugarj
08-03-2010, 06:55 AM
I didn't know that he ducked Moore, would this have been early 50s?

In the late 40s Walcott had his hands full with Louis x 2, Maxim, Johnson and Charles. In the early 50s, more Charles x 3 and Marciano x 2. So I wouldn't question his heart for a match with Moore. He didn't seem to be a guy to duck challenges.

At heavyweight I would favour Walcott in a head to head matchup.

them_apples
08-03-2010, 11:15 AM
moore would beat Walcott, Walcott had more tricks though, probably more skill.

Obama
08-03-2010, 11:27 AM
I didn't know that he ducked Moore, would this have been early 50s?

In the late 40s Walcott had his hands full with Louis x 2, Maxim, Johnson and Charles. In the early 50s, more Charles x 3 and Marciano x 2. So I wouldn't question his heart for a match with Moore. He didn't seem to be a guy to duck challenges.

At heavyweight I would favour Walcott in a head to head matchup.

I'm just going off an Archie Moore interview, I don't know how valid it is. But Archie says he ducked him. I haven't seen a response from Walcott on the matter. This interview was conducted some time before the Marciano fight, maybe even before the Bobo Olsen fight.

Sugarj
08-03-2010, 01:22 PM
Interesting Obama.....I dont think Moore would have been ducked out of fear though, more likely another title shot with Charles.

And Hi them_apples,

Do you really think Moore would have beaten Walcott at heavyweight? I cant say that Moore ever looked that great above light heavy. Taking the common opponent of Marciano at heavyweight you'd have to say Walcott was probably the better of the two.

I couldn't envisage Moore doing as well as Walcott did against the heavyweight version of Charles either..........the light heavyweight version of Charles was enough of a handful for Moore.

TheGreatA
08-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Tough one to call, I'd settle for Moore having the edge in "offensive" skill.

Archie knew how to walk his man down and could spoil any boxer's night. Walcott, for the most part, relied on his counter-punching and as stated before did not have as easy a time against opponents who forced him to lead. However there's no denying that old Jersey Joe was a bag of tricks., though more so when he was allowed to be fleet of foot and not made to fight at short distance.

While Walcott arguably had better success against some common opponents, I tend to think that Moore could have beaten him the same way Archie beat many skilled boxers/movers. He would play the "spoiler" to their boxing and grind out a points win with rough, consistent work in close.

Sugarj
08-03-2010, 07:18 PM
In a technical sense I'd be inclined to agree with you GreatA. But the Moore at light heavyweight was a different kettle of fish to the guy who fought at heavyweight.

Theres a reason why Moore never beat a really decent world class heavyweight or legendary heavyweight champion...............he simply wasn't that good at heavyweight!

I dont rate Bob Baker or Nino Valdes as truely relevant heavyweights, good wins for Moore......but nowhere in the league of the Walcott from 1947-52, that guy was superb.

Moore would likely have lost to Charles (again) at heavyweight too, despite any well planned strategy. It just wasn't his weight for me.

It wouldn't suprise me if Walcott was to do a job very similar to that of Floyd Patterson in facing Moore, too strong, too fast, too heavy handed, despite the lack of stylistic similarity.

Obama
08-03-2010, 10:53 PM
In a technical sense I'd be inclined to agree with you GreatA. But the Moore at light heavyweight was a different kettle of fish to the guy who fought at heavyweight.

Theres a reason why Moore never beat a really decent world class heavyweight or legendary heavyweight champion...............he simply wasn't that good at heavyweight!

I dont rate Bob Baker or Nino Valdes as truely relevant heavyweights, good wins for Moore......but nowhere in the league of the Walcott from 1947-52, that guy was superb.

Moore would likely have lost to Charles (again) at heavyweight too, despite any well planned strategy. It just wasn't his weight for me.

It wouldn't suprise me if Walcott was to do a job very similar to that of Floyd Patterson in facing Moore, too strong, too fast, too heavy handed, despite the lack of stylistic similarity.

Couple things:

1) Valdes managed to achieve a #1 Heavyweight rating, not just for a moment, but he got the overall annual rating for '53 and '54. After falling off afterward he even managed to climb all the way back up to #2 in '58. He was top 10 rated over all for half of the decade.

2) Valdes beat Ezzard Charles pretty decisively. Ezzard was a fan of rematches, but one was never made with Valdes.

3) The series between Charles and Walcott really should have ended 3-1 Charles, the only fight Walcott deserved to win being the miracle KO.

4) You can only definitely favor Walcott and Charles over Moore in the early 50s. By the mid 50s when Charles / Moore became shot / retired, Archie was still pretty good.

Sugarj
08-04-2010, 10:01 AM
Hi Obama,

I deliberately named Valdes, because I expected his name to come up in an argument in reply. A good heavyweight, but not in Walcott's league for me. A good win for Moore.

As for the Walcott vs Charles fights, I'm pretty sure Walcott deserved the last one too, I haven't seen it in a while but thought Walcott had a good edge.

But back on point I dont see Moore actually beating the pre Marciano Walcott.

And I agree, Ageless Archie outlasted them all into the late 50s and beyond. Legend!

TheGreatA
08-04-2010, 10:37 AM
I believe Archie Moore went 63-3 as a heavyweight with his only three losses to Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson and Muhammad Ali, all post 40 years of age.

Walcott had power in both hands but he set up his opponents to hurt them. He didn't go all out on the offense as Marciano or Patterson, who stopped an older Moore. There is a chance of Moore walking into a counter punch as Charles did in his third fight with Walcott but Moore was a clever fighter who paid attention to defense at all times and it was extremely difficult to outsmart him. Walcott relied on being able to outsmart his foes, not by overwhelming them physically.

I imagine Moore could be able to do what Layne was able to do against Walcott, but in a calculated manner unlike Layne who simply bothered Walcott with his awkward aggression, forcing Walcott against the ropes and outworking him.

DarkTerror88
08-04-2010, 10:49 AM
Tough one to call here, both were very good, scratch that, ATG fighters but i think that if walcott can trap The Old Mongoose a couple times, he has it....IF

Sugarj
08-04-2010, 01:31 PM
I think Moore did have another loss at heavyweight late in his career when he fought in Italy, not that its relevant to the thread.

The Layne vs Walcott fight is an interesting one, both did look good at times but I do gather that Walcott was nursing an injury at the time, was it a right bicep? I'd favour a fully fit Walcott to beat Layne 2 times out of every 3.

I do rate Layne, tough guy.

As for Moore's record at heavyweight, did he really fight over 60 times? I'm not going to boxrec it......but it comes as a shock. Granted though, he didn't excel at world level.

TheGreatA
08-04-2010, 02:04 PM
I think Moore did have another loss at heavyweight late in his career when he fought in Italy, not that its relevant to the thread.

The Layne vs Walcott fight is an interesting one, both did look good at times but I do gather that Walcott was nursing an injury at the time, was it a right bicep? I'd favour a fully fit Walcott to beat Layne 2 times out of every 3.

I do rate Layne, tough guy.

As for Moore's record at heavyweight, did he really fight over 60 times? I'm not going to boxrec it......but it comes as a shock. Granted though, he didn't excel at world level.

He all but cleaned out the top 10. He didn't win the title but he was top ranked for years as a heavyweight. I'd call that excelling at world level.

The loss against Rinaldi was an over the weight bout but both were pretty much light heavyweights. From the film I've seen, it wasn't the best of decisions and the "knockdown" that was called by a referee was Moore obviously playing possum on the ropes to draw Rinaldi in.

I believe Walcott claimed to have hurt his right hand against Layne. The injury wasn't serious but may have affected his performance. Nonetheless he was having difficulties with Layne's awkwardness and crowding. Moore brought it to the likes of Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim, Willie Pastrano and other skilled boxers, he was adept at dealing with the type.

Toney616
08-06-2010, 09:35 AM
Waffle over! As to sheer pound for pound skill sets I'll be controversial and edge Walcott by a smidgen. I think he had better footwork than Moore, a sharper jab, possibly better (pound for pound) hand speed and an even more unGodly use of angles......but it really is so close!

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

Toney616
08-06-2010, 09:36 AM
Walcott was slicker and probably more clever but overall his stills were inferior. He also ducked Moore.
What things did Moore do better than Walcott?

Toney616
08-06-2010, 09:43 AM
Tough one to call, I'd settle for Moore having the edge in "offensive" skill.

Archie knew how to walk his man down and could spoil any boxer's night. Walcott, for the most part, relied on his counter-punching and as stated before did not have as easy a time against opponents who forced him to lead. However there's no denying that old Jersey Joe was a bag of tricks., though more so when he was allowed to be fleet of foot and not made to fight at short distance.

While Walcott arguably had better success against some common opponents, I tend to think that Moore could have beaten him the same way Archie beat many skilled boxers/movers. He would play the "spoiler" to their boxing and grind out a points win with rough, consistent work in close.
Thanks for this

Sugarj
08-06-2010, 03:06 PM
Hi Iron Mike,

To be honest Moore and Walcott both were terrific for throwing punches from interesting angles at close range and at a distance. Walcott's hook/uppercut or Moore's sneak right being good punches to watch out for.

Walcott would jab from odd angles, especially when doing his waltz and the punches could come from as low as waste level. Or he would stand square, shift to the right and then fire a right hand counter. His slipping and hooking and firing in body punches was good to watch.

My favorite displays of Walcott's skill are Charles 3, Louis 1/Louis 2 and Marciano 1.

Toney616
08-06-2010, 03:40 PM
Hi Iron Mike,

To be honest Moore and Walcott both were terrific for throwing punches from interesting angles at close range and at a distance. Walcott's hook/uppercut or Moore's sneak right being good punches to watch out for.

Walcott would jab from odd angles, especially when doing his waltz and the punches could come from as low as waste level. Or he would stand square, shift to the right and then fire a right hand counter. His slipping and hooking and firing in body punches was good to watch.

My favorite displays of Walcott's skill are Charles 3, Louis 1/Louis 2 and Marciano 1.
Thanks for this
How would you define odd angles?

TheGreatA
08-06-2010, 04:07 PM
Thanks for this
How would you define odd angles?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F5Pw2elzBik&amp;hl=fi_FI&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F5Pw2elzBik&amp;hl=fi_FI&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Sugarj
08-06-2010, 05:55 PM
Excellent work there GreatA, I do like that video. Great that it starts with Walcott too.

And Hi Iron Mike,

I suppose defining 'odd angles' isn't too easy in the literal sense. I guess its partially the ability of a boxer to find punches with either hand to connect with his opponent at any given range when in close proximity to his opponent.

Some of these angles can be quite unorthodox, like the 45 degree angle that Walcott often used to fire off his hook/uppercut to devastating effect. He seemed to find right hands that came from nowhere, ask Joe Louis.....he was dropped by I think three of them in two fights. Ha ha

You can use footwork, such as Walcott's bouncing (the Walcott waltz) to create these 'angles', or distance (in and out), or the slipping of punches with upperbody/head movement before countering. Or even by throwing punches that start from different areas between the waste and chin level.

Its just that Walcott was stranger than most, check out the video. Watch how he slips Louis's jabs and manages to find counter punches, see how when he is pressed to the ropes by Charles, Louis or Marciano he can land quick right hands that only seem to travel a few inches. Or how he can move inside Charles's lead hand and fire in that awesome hook/uppercut that knocks Charles out. Or how he quickly turns southpaw against Louis fires in a straight right, then moves back into the orthodox stance. Really bizarre for the day. Also watch the strange angles he fires the jab from, he'll use it as a counter punch in itself, or probe from the left or the right of his opponent..........all different angles.

A professional trainer would give you a much better prose than me, but you'll get the idea the more you watch.