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

[Sugarj]

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]

moore would beat Walcott, Walcott had more tricks though, probably more skill.

[Obama]

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]

Interesting *****.....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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi *****,

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]

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]

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