Heavyweights: Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Archie Moore

[scorpio83]

15 Rounds Heavyweight Bout

In the battle of ancient fighters, JJW and Moore would exchange jabs and combinations on outside and inside. However, in the end, Walcott would get the better of Moore with better counters to take a decision. If they fought in a series, Walcott made get the better of Moore 2-1 while Moore would throw more jabs and counters to take a decision himself. What do you guys think and who do you got?

[DrDuke]

Walcott would outbox Moore. At HW he was faster and sharper than Archie. Both could score a stoppage.

[HomicideHenry]

As a heavyweight Moore was and still is underrated and underappreciated. I think the man in total had 80+ matches at heavyweight, and the only losses that come to mind were against Marciano, Patterson and Ali.

Walcott, was seriously avoided in his prime to the point of being practically a non-entity. Brought in as cannon fodder for Joe Louis, one can seriously make the argument that he was robbed in their match. He was winning the return bout until he was stopped. Unlike many fighters he was like Lennox Lewis and Bernard Hopkins, as well as Archie Moore, in the sense that he seemed to get better with age.

These men did have a couple of opponents in common:

Walcott was able to win 2 matches out of 5 with Ezzard Charles, although one can argue that their final encounter was a robbery. Moore, facing Charles at his best, lost three out of three, once by stoppage.

Walcott lost twice to Rocky Marciano, both knockout losses, although it must be noted that Walcott was having the best fight of his life until he was knocked out in the 13th round.

Jimmy Bivins, both men fought repeatedly. Joey Maxim, both men fought repeatedly as well. Curtis Sheppard was another. Etc.

So all in all very similar win/loss ratios to the same mutual opponents. Walcott was more the "fancy Dan" with moves he seemingly created on the fly--- Moore the hard hitting, quick witted, boxer-puncher.

Both were virtually the same size and dimensions. Archie was able to defeat the likes of Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, Mike DeJohn, Harold Johnson, Clarence Henry, and many others at heavyweight. So he was certainly capable as a threat to the heavyweight crown.

It's probably a safe answer but in a series I see both men winning and losing. Let's say five fights, Archie wins two and Walcott three, or it's two a piece and one draw.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure where this comment is come from: "Walcott, was seriously avoided in his prime to the point of being practically a non-entity"

Who was avoiding him? Louis was the champion and didn't fight him until he became a top contender.

Anyway, Walcott did struggle for a long time, until he got a new trainer and his career turned around. He was fast on his feet and had a very good left hook. At his best, I would pick him over Moore.

[HomicideHenry]

Walcott was so good he was avoided for a couple of years. Which is why the man had to eek out a living as a garbage man.

He would beat somebody he wasn't supposed to beat and then would get avoided by other prospects and contenders for long stretches of time.

When he did get fights it was often on short notice or he was injured, therefore he would lose matches and lose his position.



By the time he was selected to face Joe Louis, he was thought more as a fringe contender if not a journeyman than a bona fide threat to the title. He was thought to be nothing more than another "bum of the month," until after the fact.

The match with Joe Louis originally was supposed to be an exhibition, for crying out loud, but the commissioner insisted that the title be on the line. That is a fact that so many people overlook.

[Ambling Alp II]

That not very close to what happened. Walcott was not so good that he was avoided.

He did not have good trainers for much of his career. He lost a lot of fights; some to good fighters and sometimes to not so good fighters.
After getting ko'd by Abe Simon in 1940, he finally quit the sport for a while.
When he got Dan Florio as his trainer, his career turned around. He fought several contenders in 1945-1947. After winning some big fights, he got a shot at Louis.

Walcott was not a "fringe contender" as homicidehenry said when he fought Louis in 1947. Walcott was rated as the #3 contender at the end of 1946.

[HomicideHenry]

Then why was the match originally supposed to be an exhibition? Why was he originally thought to be just another bomb of the month participant?

Louis came into the contest as a 10-1 favorite. Those kind of odds go against the grain of what you are saying Alp. He was perceived as a non-threat to the heavyweight title because he had been dismissed for such a long time.

At the end of 1946 he lost to Elmer Ray and Joey Maxim, although he did avenge those losses the following year. Also, not the only one to point out that Walcott was thought to be a nothing before fighting Louis:

https://www.thefightcity.com/jersey-joe ... e-big-one/

For years he couldn’t catch a break, in part because he was black, but also because Jersey Joe was perceived as a no-hope journeyman, a perennial contender, who couldn’t, and wouldn’t, make the big time.

As the article says... The man retired about a dozen times, eeking out a living as a garbage man, and at one point only had two fights in 4 years... Why? In part because he was avoided because he was too good.

https://www.thefightcity.com/joe-louis- ... walcott-i/

Jersey Joe Walcott had emerged as the next worthy opponent, challenger number 24, after scoring wins over Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, and Elmer Ray, but despite his merit as a top contender, few thought Walcott had any chance to win. After all, he was a former middleweight, a journeyman, with eleven losses on his record. Hell, he had even been Louis’ sparring partner at one point. Oddsmakers pegged Jersey Joe as a ten-to-one underdog.

You have a vendetta towards me Alp, and I'm sick of the undermining. This is well known stuff among hardcore boxing fans that Jersey Joe Walcott was avoided throughout most of his career--- to the point of him being almost a non-entity in the business.



And an old friend of mine from back in the day discusses Jersey Joe Walcott, and quite frankly the bizarre opinions of people on the BoxRec. He points out in the video that Walcott's career was plagued by injuries, mismanagement, robberies, etc.

It wasn't until 1947 that he really turned anything around for himself. The man is comparable in many ways to Jim Braddock. Far better than his record indicated, but nevertheless he was perceived as a second rate heavyweight throughout most of his career.

And yes he was avoided. The only people he could get fights with were Elmer Ray, who was also avoided, and men like Lee Murray, who was also avoided. Etc--- whether it be because he was black or because he was too damn good the fact remains he was still avoided.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was a huge underdog because Joe Louis had been the champion for 11 years and Walcott had several losses. He was a legitimate contender, but his opponent was Joe Louis, up to then the greatest champion in heavyweight history. Not hard to understand that Walcott was a big underdog.

You are saying two things that contradict each other.
On the one hand you are saying that he was perceived as a "non threat".
Then on the other hand you say he was so good that he was avoided. Well if he was not a "non-threat" he would not have been avoided.

Walcott was not avoided. Look at his career.
He already had 8 losses when he got ko'd by Simon in 1940.
When he came back, he fought multiple contenders each year in 1945, 1946, and 1947, before fighting Louis in 1947. He was not avoided then.

When specifically was he "avoided"?

As me having a "vendetta" against you: you say a lot of things that simply aren't true. I (and others) often call you out on it.
What you could do is actually research something thoroughly (not skimming when you read) and then post about it.

[HomicideHenry]

Let me explain this once again...

The man was avoided to the point of him not getting matches and forcing retirements.

Because of these breaks in activity, he would lose momentum.

Because he lost momentum he was perpetually in a state of being a journeyman.

Because of this he was perceived as a non-threat at different times in his career.

Then when he would win fights he wasn't supposed to he would get avoided all over again. The only matches he could get most of the time was against other men who were also avoided.

Then throw in the fact the man also fought a lot of matches on short notice, often when he was malnourished or injured, etc--- he would lose fights he shouldn't have which all but cemented the image of him being a journeyman when he was better than that.

Regardless of his #3 ranking at the time, the image of him being basically a journeyman was still there. Let's compare some betting odds for Joe Louis:

Billy Conn (rematch) 3 & 1/2 to 1 underdog
Abe Simon (rematch) 15 to 1 underdog
Buddy Baer (rematch) 6 to 1 underdog
Arturo Godoy (rematch) 5 to 1 underdog
John Henry Lewis 8-1 underdog
Jack Roper 10-1 underdog

So really the perception on Walcott was that he was more like Roper and Simon, than Conn or Godoy or Lewis, as far as the odds makers and the public were concerned.

Of course that wasn't the reality because he was better than that, but the truth is he was perceived as being a non-threat to Joe Louis. However as I already stated that perception was because he had so many ups and downs in his career and starts and stops.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was not avoided. There is nothing to support that.

He struggled for several years because he did not have a good trainer. He finally got one and his career took off. He was coming off of a win over Elmer Ray when he fought Louis. Ray was the number one contender.

As for odds, sometime odds seem to make sense, but at times they don't.
Assuming these odds are correct, some of these are about what you would expect. Conn, Buddy Baer, and Godoy gave Louis trouble and it was not surprising they would not be as big of underdogs. Not sure why Abe Simon would have been such a big underdog.

Now your line is he had a lot of stops and starts. Well sort of. He didn't fight in 1932, and then quit for a few years during World War II.
That was his own decision. He certainly could have got fights had he wanted to.

He was not given much of a chance to beat Louis because Louis was that highly regarded. He had already beaten one guy after another by that point.

[HomicideHenry]

We agree to disagree on the matter.

[elmersalsa]

The great Jersey Joe Walcott KOs the great Archie Moore with that perfectly timed left hook. If the great Ezzard Charles didn't see it, Moore would not either.

[elmersalsa]

Archie Moore had the greater career by far.