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

[Toney616]

Can anyone tell me which one? Please give reasons as well
Archie Moore:

Jersey Joe Walcott:

[StarshipTrooper]

Oooooh now THIS is a tough one :cool9:

Poet

[Toney616]

Oooooh now THIS is a tough one :cool9:

Poet

lmao

[StarshipTrooper]

lmao

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

Poet

[Toney616]

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?

[StarshipTrooper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Walcott was slicker and probably more clever but overall his stills were inferior. He also ducked Moore.