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

I think Charles looks slower than them on film, kinda rusty too.

 

The guy was the outstanding heavyweight contender. Had beat #1and #2 contenders and regardless of age was on his career peak. Looks great on film too. I'm only convincing myself with the facts. You are convincing yourself with the notion these guys were where Ali was in his last fight. The era was not the 1970s but it was full of seasoned professionals unlike today. Someone put a highlight reel together of Archies subtle skills and it was littered with moments from later fights than this showdown with Marciano. If moore was so old and faded why include those clips that highlight his speed, cunning and power?

 

Satterfield had been ko'd in2 rds by Harold Johnson ,in 3 by Moore, 7 by Lamotta,8 by John Holman,2 by Sam Baroudi,4 by Henry Hall,8 by Rex Layne,1 by Mack Parshay,1 by Clarence Henry,and 1 by Bob Foxworth

.He would go on to be ko'd a further 3 times and end up with 13 stoppage losses in79 fights, in short durable he wasn't.

Generally, Bob either got you or you got him.

Having said that it is a spectacular left hook ko set up by a body shot.

 

Perhaps in the second fight he did. The first fight he was very sharp I thought. Ezzards short punching looked very well timed for a rusty fighter. He won the early rounds.