Most skilled: Walcott, Moore, or Charles

[Nagabilly]

I'm a new fan and I love watching classic fights, but I never watched anything older than Cassius Clay. I stumbled upon a short vid of Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Jersey Joe and it really impressed me. Particularly Charles, just a quick look at his resume is enough to make me wonder why is he so rarely ranked among with Ali, Robinson and Armstrong.

My questions:
1. Among those 3 names, how would you rank them in terms of skills?
2. Who was greater at 175, Charles or Moore?

[IronDanHamza]

I would say Charles is both the more skilled and greater of the 3.

Both Walcott and Moore are very skilled though.

Walcott being by far the least great of the 3.

[NChristo]

Footwork I'd give it too Walcott, but overall I'd say he was short of Moore or Charles, difficult question.

Charles > Moore at light heavy, wouldn't argue too much if someone thought Moore was greater though.

[JAB5239]

I'm a new fan and I love watching classic fights, but I never watched anything older than Cassius Clay. I stumbled upon a short vid of Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Jersey Joe and it really impressed me. Particularly Charles, just a quick look at his resume is enough to make me wonder why is he so rarely ranked among with Ali, Robinson and Armstrong.

My questions:
1. Among those 3 names, how would you rank them in terms of skills?
2. Who was greater at 175, Charles or Moore?

Charles was the most skilled in my opinion too. Also, Charles is rated very highly p4p all time by most credible sources and historians. The international boxing research organization has him at 12. Personally I feel he is in the top 5 or 6. Just my opinion of course.

[Sugarj]

I'm a new fan and I love watching classic fights, but I never watched anything older than Cassius Clay. I stumbled upon a short vid of Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Jersey Joe and it really impressed me. Particularly Charles, just a quick look at his resume is enough to make me wonder why is he so rarely ranked among with Ali, Robinson and Armstrong.

My questions:
1. Among those 3 names, how would you rank them in terms of skills?
2. Who was greater at 175, Charles or Moore?

Theres lots of ways to answer this question:

Walcott was the real heavyweight of the trio; Whereas Moore and Charles were at their best at light heavyweight.

At light heavyweight I would argue that Charles was probably a touch more skilled than Moore.....and lets face it, he beat Moore several times at the weight. No brainer for me!

At heavyweight, things are a little different between the three. I'd actually argue that Walcott might possibly command top spot for skills demonstrated at the higher weight and for skills shown against common opponents. The problem was that Walcott could be inconsistent.....and his chin wasn't quite as good as Moore or Charles.

But what must be pointed out is that in the case of Charles and Moore, heavyweight was not their best weight and they were past their best when they were campaigning there. Charles looked fantastic against Louis, but declined very quickly over what seemed to be a very few years. Walcott probably was at his prime in his mid to late 30s (might have been the reason why he lost the first two Charles fights but was rather more impressive in the second two).

Walcott not only had the two more decisive wins against Charles when they met at heavyweight after losing two prior decisions; but he did seem to show more skill against Marciano than either Charles or Moore. I'd also say that Walcott looked very impressive against a rather better version of Louis than Charles had to contend with. I'm not convinced that even the best heavyweight version of Charles would have taken the Louis of a few years earlier to a disputed split decision, which is what Walcott did.

[Debopam Roy]

^he sums it up nicely.

[rightsideup]

you can not go wrong with sugar's reasoning

[Ray Corso]

Skill levels and experiences;

Charles to me is the more fluid guy with a higher skill level.
Walcott was a true warrior and fought everyone!
Moore the most experienced bt didn't have the movement of a boxer. He was a stepper and fought his fight but was able to adjust and take the opponents plusses and make them work against them. Thinking mans fighter.

Three ATG fighters that could fight in any era and be highly sucessfull. Ray

[Sugarj]

Cheers fellas, good thread.....

[IronDanHamza]

Footwork I'd give it too Walcott, but overall I'd say he was short of Moore or Charles, difficult question.

Charles > Moore at light heavy, wouldn't argue too much if someone thought Moore was greater though.

Really? I think Charles is greater quite clearly.

Moore is a Top 10 ATG IMO but I would disagree if someone said he were greater than Charles.