How good do 1952 Walcott, 1955 Moore, 1954 Charles look on film?

Yes, they were world class.
Bit on the small side, as they were all 6' or under, and two of them were at their best as 175-pounders.

 

That is the crux of it!:good

 

Yes indeed!

And I would say they looked even better when they were in their primes!:good











:yep:bbb

 

I do not think anyone is saying they were not world class fighters .. Charles and Moore are two of the all time greats ... Walcott, while in my opinion quite over rated was a very skilled guy .. the issue has always been one of their size and age when used as flagship victories for qualifying Marciano's all time greatness. Two completely separate issues ..

 

Why do you ask? Are you doubting yourself? How do they look to you?

 

they beat all the big and young competition so I guess they were still the best of the era add the 5'10 Harold Johnson who beat many a big man but lost to Archie and Walcott and 5"10 Satterfield who KO'd the 31-1 6'3 Big Cat Williams in a one-sided fight and KO'd 6'2 Bob Baker in 1 rd (Archie and Ezz beat Satterfiled) and dominated & dropped Valdes for a ( count in the 10th

I think they all look amazing on film Walcott was a physical specimen ....Moore was a master and Ezzard still dangerous and talented.

Fighting so often the were not always consistent but who was, the thing is they were all on top of there game prior to the Marciano beatings and the 38 yr old Moore went on to find success in the light heavyweight division going 38-4-2 and even got a money fight against Ali 8 years after the Marciano loss

 

Heretic!!! how dare you say anything bad about Walcott :fire

 

I've watched some of Ezzard Charles' footage and he was a fighter for the serious boxing fan and not the casual variety. Casual fans want to see all out swinging and blood and guts. Serious fans have more appreciation for the finer skills and chess playing maneuvers that the more tactical boxers posses and that was what Ezzard Charles was all about. Yes he looked great on film and so did the other ones mentioned in the thread.

 

Charles looked great on film in 1954 and was exactly where Muhammad Ali was in 1974, an ex champion with one special fight still left in him. He had two great wins behind him just like Ali had going into Zaire with a good camp to prepare. Charles v Marciano was the best match that could have been made that year.

Walcott left everything in the ring that night against Marciano. He gave it everything proving more qualities than was seen in almost any other filmed fight
Walcott featured in. Walcott was slick, often safety first. His fights with Charles were quite strategic cat and mouse affairs. Clever boxing punctuated with heavy counter punches. Against Marciano however Walcott was forced into putting it all on the line. The pace was harder and Walcott really was terrific. Without knowing how old he was you would never know viewing the film.

Archie Moore looked as good as he ever did against Marciano ... until he was knocked down. And why shouldn't he? This was a career opportunity he worked harder than almost any other challenger in history. Not only did Moore have to beat both the #1 and #2 heavyweight contender (enough in itself, ask how many heavyweight contenders Micheal Spinks, Joey Maxim, Bob foster, Roy Jones, John Henry Lewis had to beat to earn a HW title shot) but Archie was forced to defend his LH title just months before in order to keep his title. In 1955 regardless of involving a LH champion this was the best Heavyweight fight that could be made.

 

They looked world class

 

Difference being prime Ali was a natural heavyweight and prime Charles and Moore were natural light heavyweights.

Moore defended against Olson so that he would be going in to the ring with Marciano as the reigning lhvy champ ie to maximise his drawing,[and earning,] potential.

John Henry Lewis had kod Elmer Ray8 months previously he had beaten Johnny Adamick a fringe contender at heavyweight Adamick had beatenHarry Thomas,and Natie Brown.
In his previous fight Lewis had beaten Al Ettore who in turn had beaten,Walcott,Ruggiarello,Massera,Reddish,Dorazio,Leroy Haynes 3 times, drew with Godoy, and beaten Jim Braddock.
Maxim had beaten Walcott,Sheppardx3 , Scott,Bivins,Tandberg,Scott,Burman,Kahut,Muscato,Oma.

 

good post and very true, Spinks went from light Heavy to a shot at the title and he was the less of the evils that Holmes could have fought. Moore had to beat Heavyweights and then defend his title, he was not rated at Heavyweight because he was champ at 175 and although everyone knew he was the # 1 contender in reality because he KO'd Bob Baker, and beat Valdes 2X and he also beat Harold Johnson and Satterfield who had there own share of heavyweights. Ezz was also still strong with 2 explosive KO's over Satterfield and Wallace and won 11 of his last 13 fights only losing a disputed SD and a close nod to Valdes 3-5-2 on 2 judges cards in Miami (little Cuba) Valdes refused a rematch Ezz was also fighting once a month or 2 , fighting 8 times in 1953 alone