I like Moore on points in 1952. Walcott was a different fighter than he’d been four or five years earlier. He did have one last performance in him though - vs Marciano - so anything goes.
Although Archie Moore was leagues better pound for pound and legacy wise, I’m slightly leaning towards Joe Walcott to win. Out of respect for Moore I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt to survive the distance and make it close on the cards.
I can't call it. All I can say is Moore wins at light heavy, Walcott wins at heavyweight. I'd say Walcott via decision. Both men see the canvas at some point.
If Walcott fights how he did in the 3rd Charles fight, he takes him probably on points or late KO if he can find the punch, if he stands off too much, he could get out worked, but if he goes for the win, he’s too much for Moore, he’d outmuscle him in the clinch to not let Moore get work off on the inside, and would out jab him on the outside with his longer reach and lighter feet and land lead left hooks and uppercuts with how Moore defends.