How skilled was Charles, Walcott, Moore when Rocky beat them

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by InMemoryofJakeLamotta, Sep 4, 2019.


  1. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    5,040
    4,974
    Mar 26, 2011
    Being young can make a hell of a difference! Or do you think men of 38 and 40 have the legs and ability to take the punishment of 25 year olds?
     
  2. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,575
    May 30, 2019
    Sometimes they have! Moore, Fitz and Hopkins were arguably better at the age of 38 than at the age of 25. Experience is also very important. Foreman could take more punishment at the agoe of 40 than when he was young.

    Boxing is not black and white. Walcott was old, but he had some of his best wins at that age. You can argue that he was better a few years before, but he was still in his prime.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  3. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,594
    Apr 9, 2017
    Exceptionally skilled, but physiologically deteriorated. How deteriorated, relative to their chronological ages? I haven't the foggiest idea.
     
    KuRuPT and InMemoryofJakeLamotta like this.
  4. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,666
    36,282
    Jan 8, 2017
    They'd all seen better days tbh.
    Now if Rocky had faced Walcott, Charles and Moore when they were say, 10years younger, well its hard to say who wins imo.
     
  5. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,575
    May 30, 2019
    Moore was better in 1955 than 1945 and Walcot was better in 1952 than 1942.
     
  6. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,666
    36,282
    Jan 8, 2017
    Yep I get your point, the experience they d picked up helped them as well, some fighters do get better with age like Lewis for exep. It's hard to say sometime s if a boxer is better being younger, fitter like Ali for instance s, he slowed down with age but the older version seemed to take a shot better.
     
  7. RulesMakeItInteresting

    RulesMakeItInteresting Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,657
    11,519
    Mar 23, 2019
    I think Ali really cleaned up his act in regard to defending against left hooks after Frazier. As I've mentioned before, I still cringe when I see Ali dropping that right hand ad infinitum in the FOTC. I think he learned a great deal from that fight...in fact, if it had been Foreman instead of Frazier as champ when Ali came back Ali might have got his butt kicked. His openness to the hook...I doubt anyone here will place Joe's hook up there with Foreman's in terms of sheer, raw, brute strength (Joe's was of course both faster and overall tighter).
     
    Fergy likes this.
  8. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,666
    36,282
    Jan 8, 2017
    It's like when Ali almost got kod against Cooper, it's hard to imagine a 1974 version having the same problem. The young Clay/Ali was fleet footed and amazing speed, but diced with danger with his style, the older Ali looked more in control and less likely to get dropped. It's like I was saying about Walcott etc, the younger version s would have been fitter, faster but experience gained made them better fighter s.
     
  9. RulesMakeItInteresting

    RulesMakeItInteresting Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,657
    11,519
    Mar 23, 2019
    I completely agree. Just check Ali against Joe in that second (at times unutterably boring) fight. Though I question Ali's win there, he obviously had come some distance from the first fight. Top grade jab-and-hold strategy, exactly the type of thing Holmes would have used against Mike back in his own day.
     
    Fergy likes this.
  10. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    29,666
    36,282
    Jan 8, 2017
    Sign of a great fighter, adjusting, changing and adapting as they get older. Foreman has well, and Holmes. Some learn, some don't. Tyson never really did that imo though as he aged. He just proved he could take a shot and keep coming.
     
  11. RulesMakeItInteresting

    RulesMakeItInteresting Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,657
    11,519
    Mar 23, 2019
    The problem for Mike was, he kept coming. Strategy didn't work against Holy...and wouldn't have worked at all against prime Foreman and Holmes.

    Just my opinion.

    I don't think any of the fighters mentioned in the topic were in their prime.
     
    Fergy likes this.
  12. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    I agree, but not to the extent that a 33 year old Charles was more shopworn than a 40 year old Pacquaio.


    Charles and Walcott’s age were legitimate factors in their losses against Marciano. But those factors have been way way waaay overblown in recent years.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  13. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails... Full Member

    10,222
    19,535
    Jul 25, 2015
    Why do you keep comparing to Pacquaio?
    Primes are completely contextual on the fighter. Was Moore absolutely ancient because Fighting Harada was finished at 26?

    I agree with your second paragraph.
     
  14. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Because it faults the notion that age is an absolute metric.

    And in the case of Charles and Walcott, that argument seems to take precedent over their status as top level competitors of their division.

    Pacquaio isn’t a sole example. But it’s a current one.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  15. Grapefruit

    Grapefruit Active Member Full Member

    1,215
    943
    Dec 19, 2017
    All were very skilled but undoubtedly on the decline except for maybe Walcott who got better over time, moore was also atleast very close to his prime, archie had pretty unmatched longevity, most fighters would have been punch drunk long before their time, he was the only great that didnt fight Marciano at the end of their career.