BoxRec

I go back and forth on this but, in the end, I think Walcott takes this one on points.

Walcott by UD.

I agree with you fellas, though I think it'd be fairly close. Walcott drops him early & goes on to take a points victory.

Walcott by decision. Even more slippery than the Mongoose and naturally bigger and stronger.

Nonsense. Not more slippery, though he was pretty cagey no doubt. This is no certain win for Walcott, IMHO.

...i've been waiting for box buzz to come on here....i felt he should be first to add his opinion. i agree.....not a shoo in for walcott. don't know which one i'd pick...sometimes i think archie could win..others i think walcott.

i will add this. i saw archie decision oakland billy smith in 1948 in cincinnati...and when ezzard charles was matched against walcott i was sure he'd win..thinking..."if ezzard could beat moore three out of three he's going to take walcott"..i was so impressed by moore.

whatever.. a toss-up...with just a tilt in my direction for moore by a decision.

I think Walcott's craftiness, and slick techniques would allow him to get the best of Moore. Moore of course would give him a good enough scrap while he was in there. But Archie was just not a natural Heavyweight, and would always have hell with any of the better Heavies out there. Walcott either by Unanimous Decision or late stoppage.

The great Jersey Joe Walcott beats the great Archie Moore in this one. Especially, if the fight is at heavyweight.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Jersey Joe Walcott beats the great Archie Moore in this one. Especially, if the fight is at heavyweight.

Where else would it be though, Elmer?

Jersey?

Walcott on points.

This is clearly not nearly this one sided. Take a close look at their individual records and it's hard to see where the bias comes from. If you simply take Walcotts top performances I suppose you could lean to 60/40......but he did show some inconsistency. And Moore was pretty adept at finding your weaknesses and making the most of them. I'm not sure the size differential is going to play all that big of a role. Joey Maxim might have an opinion of worth on this subject.

Buzz, I don't see why you have a problem with Walcott being a solid favorite. I see it surely being a competitive fight but Walcott at his best was, yes, just as slick as Moore and a bigger puncher at heavyweight, with equal or slightly superior speed.
With your Maxim comparison, A) Walcott avenged his defeat and B) Moore fought Maxim over 5 years later when Maxim was past his best (not that Maxim beats Moore at his peak, but it would've been a closer fight)

Dempsey you misunderstand....I'm just openly wondering what his opinion might be. It might be interestingly persuasive to some. Including me.

...buzz...well, if you can find a medium to contact maxim, let me know what he said.

I think this is definitely a horse race. I go with Walcott on points by a slim margin but IMO Moore is a very live underdog. Both were slick operators with real power. I looks to me like Walcott was stronger, probably a bigger one-punch hitter, a little more defensively-minded. Moore, I think, was a little quicker and had better cardio. I could see Moore coming on strong at the end and just missing the decision-- Zenyatta like. The more film I see of the ol' Mongoose, the better he looks.

jaclem2 wrote:...buzz...well, if you can find a medium to contact maxim, let me know what he said.

lol....I was thinking more about the historic record, rather than dragging him back to consult. However as you can see below, Randy is busily attempting to make contact for me per my request.......