Serious Opinion Question about Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott

Archie was obviously still great, and the fact that he continued to reign over the LH division for another four years and rack up victories over good opponents makes this Rocky's best win.

The only hitch in the case of Walcott was that he might have been sliding slightly (again), given that his fourth fight with a man whom he had smoked to win the belt was a closely contested- and apparently disputed decision. Or...Maybe it was a case of Walcott being inconsistant. That could sometimes happen in that case. But even if it was a case of wondering which Walcott showed up, I think it's pretty apparent that the REALLY good version showed up to face Rocky the first time around. So, the answer to the question in this case is Yes as well.

 

I think both fighters were still good when they fought Rocky.

I think Walcott "got old" in the rematch, though. Took one right uppercut and called it a night. For whatever reason, he wasn't the same fighter as he was in the original bout. He fought as if he was afraid, and he submitted the moment he got caught. In the first match, Walcott fought one of the best fights of his career.

As for Moore, didn't he continue his winning streak in the light heavyweight division immediately after his loss to Marciano? I think the power of a heavyweight fighter was just too much for him. Archie was also unable to adjust to Ali and Floyd Patterson. He seemed best when he fought guys in his own weight class. (And I know he and Marciano were the same size, but Rocky had freakish power. He lacked the size of a heayweight, but had the strength and punching power of one.)

 

Jersey Joe Walcott looked in great shape and fought well and hard, he was still near his best at least.

He'd won his last two fights, although some say he was lucky to get the decision in the 4th Charles fight which was a dull fight, and before that he'd lost two fights (against Charles and Rex Layne).

 

I think Walcott was still good, but clearly on the decline. Walcott likely had more pay days if he wanted them, but retired after the 2nd Marciano fight. Perhaps losing to Layne, and back to back KO losses was enough to convince Walcott it was time to retire.

Moore proved to have plenty of good boxing left in him after Marciano beat him.

 

Walcott at 38 had the same problem that a post exile Ali had and every other fighter has late in his career, his legs were worn down. He could not move like he did 54 months earlier against Joe Louis.When he fought Marciano he still was a dangerous puncher with fast hands and a crafty bag of tricks but he was no longer great because he could not fight his fight for a full 15 rounds. He was like a former great pitcher whose fastball now occassionally cracked the low 90's and had to get by on a bag of tricks. Against Marciano Walcott had to shift into second gear after round two and fought in spirts. This is fact.

Archie Moore had a different game than Walcott. He was always about pace and was a master. That being said Moore was still a terrific fighter depending on who he was fighting stylewise. In addition, Moore was a great light heavyweight, not a great heavyweight. Rocky wore Archie down as once again Archie lacked the wheels to stay away. IN addition, he was blown away by Patterson in short order months later. Are we to assume at that Archie just got old after Marciano or that he was old for both and could use his exceptional skill set to defeat one grade of fighter but not another higher caliber?

 

Funny you should start this topic as I have just watched Marciano Moore today, and my thought was how good Moore looked early on but Marciano was clearly the better fighter. Moore made the comment on Marciano's defense that before the fight he thought he could catch the Rock with a left hook but in the fight he realized if he threw it he was open to a righthand counter from Rocky.

 

Both were past prime, slowed with declined stamina but still very good. Moore isn't a great at HW, only LHW, still a top HW contender of the time.

 

I agree with this, but I can't help wondering if Marciano would have beaten the 1947 Walcott from his robbery loss against Louis.

 

Everything I've seen of that fight shows neither man was doing enough to clearly win IMO.

I think the 2nd fight is a better gauge of both; Walcott dangerous early, Louis decimating him late.

 

Moore definitly. There is no point argueing that. It´s obvious.

Walcott is tougher. He looked very good if not great. But the second one ... well, you could say the beating he suffered in the first took everything out of him. I´d give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Your post already answered your question. Why didn't you just call this thread "Let's give credit to Marciano"?

 

I voted no.

Moore was still a great fighter, but never a great HW. Shortly after he was more convincingly beaten by Patterson, but reamained a top HW contender for many years.

As for Walcott, I'd a agree with those who said he was still very good, but probably didn't have the same legs or stamina anymore (who has at 38?).

They were the best out there, though, and aside from Ali, Holyfield, Frazier and Foreman I can't really think of any HW champion that beat better opponents than these two. Well, that would be Louis, who beat a younger Walcott.

 

Rather than writing a whole other response of my own, I'll ride off your typing work and co-sign this one... I concur with your answer.