Serious Opinion Question about Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Jul 13, 2010.


Page 2 of 2
  1. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    You make some good points above...a couple things

    If he didn't have legs or stamina anymore, how come he beat the dog**** out of a prime rocky marciano for 12 rounds including his best rounds being the 11th and the 12th? Does this reflect poorly on marciano if walcott had "no" legs? I do believe Walcott looked slightly faster and more fluid against Louis in 1947, but he was still essentially the same great fighter when he won the heavyweight title in 1951. In fact he became more aggressive in 1951.

    I personally think Walcott was by far the best Marciano fought, and as the heavyweight champion(coming off two wins over ATG ezzard charles)...he was definitely a great heavyweight.


    It seems your saying Moore was still great when he fought Marciano, but not Walcott?

    If this is the case, then do you stand by the statement Ezzard Charles lost his heavyweight crown to a non great fighter in 1951?
     
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    #16
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    The thread is in response to this statement posted by someone in another thread

    How do you feel about that?
     
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    #17
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,725
    Sep 14, 2005
    Is this a non great fighter right here?


    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmojnJNIyA8[/ame]
     
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    SuzieQ49, Jul 14, 2010
    #18
  4. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    they absolutely were.
     
    goat15, Apr 5, 2011
    goat15, Apr 5, 2011
    #19
  5. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,271
    9,112
    Jul 15, 2008
    Both were capable of great moments but could not maintain the pace over 15 rounds against a young killer like Marciano. Why is that so difficult for you to get your thoughts around ? Both had to trade more than they would have liked because of two reasons ... the first was that Rocky was no defensive wiz and the second was when legs get tired and they can no longer move they have to trade, playing into Marciano's sweet spot. Styles make fights ... look how easily Patterson destroyed Moore soon after .. he had the speed to exploit the much slower Moore ... In Moore's heavyweight run he pooled his skill set and defeated a decent but nothing special group of heavyweights much like a former fastball pitcher relying on other assorted pitches once he no longer hits the mid 90's .. against Marciano and Patterson it was not good enough. Do you actually think that 1950's Moore defeats a Liston, Ali, Holmes, Bowe, Lewis, Frazier, Louis, Dempsey, Tyson or Holyfield ? I say he loses decisively to all ... it was all about who he was fighting .. As far as Walcott goes I think he got lucky against a Charles that was already starting to show his milage .. look how Ez blew the rematch with Walcott and had multiple losses after as well .. the guys were all in the final acts of their careers.
     
    he grant, Apr 6, 2011
    he grant, Apr 6, 2011
    #20
Page 2 of 2