Archie Moore vs Jersey Joe

I think the opposite.

I find this impossible to predict. Walcott surely has a size advantage along with fight-changing power and great skills (as does Moore). He was not exactly unbeatable however and neither was Old Archie.

Moore had more dimensions in my opinion, he could make the opponent lead and attempt to counter punch but he could also be the aggressor and a spoiler very effectively. Doesn't mean he would win, though.

All in all I'd say Walcott was the better heavyweight but Moore was better pound for pound.

 

I have to go with Moore in this. Combination of skill and power.

 

I agree with allot of this. Although I think Walcott performed better at HW against the best opponents they both faced by going 1-1 with Louis, beating Charles (something Moore never managed), Elmer Ray, Harold Johnson (not sure if that counts for Joe), a better version of Bivins.

Its close but on a 5 fight series my money would certainly be on Walcott and he may just take them all

 

I don't think Walcott fought quite the same Charles that Moore did and Charles did go 2-0 against Walcott until foolishly giving him a third chance.

Moore went 0-3 against the prime LHW version of Charles but he put up a great effort in all of them, losing the second fight by a close majority decision and the third fight by KO after nearly KO'ing Charles himself.

Archie and his manager said they wanted to get Charles in the ring with him for a fourth time at heavyweight, unsuccessfully so. I think he may have beaten the 1950's Ezzard Charles.

 

Edit: Double post

 

I agree not too many heavyweights had the slickness and power combind and his pinpoint power shots were incredible. If one area he may get critisism is he seemed to be content once he dropped a fighter, amazed at his own acuaracy and power. Joe had 1 punch KO power but he could have fun getting cute in there with his foot movement and pin point punching power. His level of competiton was also incredible and he overcame early mismanagement and in appropriate training that is an answer to his eratic begining.

 

Good points, I don't think he beat World HW Champ Charles, the post Marciano version he would beat though as Charles faded fast then

Walcott also performed better against a better Rocky, I think he has that slight edge in performances, stylistically there isn't much in it all and I'm sure it'd be close

 

Walcott was a late bloomer and his earlier fights vs Charles were close. Walcott pinpointed a bomb of a hook on Charles, a punch that not too many could survive. Fact is Charles had 2 of his best fights before Marciano, Electric KO's over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield. As far as Walcott I think one of his best performances was the Rocky 1 fight, he may have gotten too aggressive for his own good in that one. I think the 1st fight version of Walcott was a beast and Charles in Marciano 1, Ezz got himself in great condition and up for the fight. They were never the same after but that was a fate Marciano opponents suffered in general after a mental, physical, and exausting beating from the Rock.