Most skilled: Walcott, Moore, or Charles

[U_TALKING_2_ME?]

Theres lots of ways to answer this question:

Walcott was the real heavyweight of the trio; Whereas Moore and Charles were at their best at light heavyweight.

At light heavyweight I would argue that Charles was probably a touch more skilled than Moore.....and lets face it, he beat Moore several times at the weight. No brainer for me!

At heavyweight, things are a little different between the three. I'd actually argue that Walcott might possibly command top spot for skills demonstrated at the higher weight and for skills shown against common opponents. The problem was that Walcott could be inconsistent.....and his chin wasn't quite as good as Moore or Charles.

But what must be pointed out is that in the case of Charles and Moore, heavyweight was not their best weight and they were past their best when they were campaigning there. Charles looked fantastic against Louis, but declined very quickly over what seemed to be a very few years. Walcott probably was at his prime in his mid to late 30s (might have been the reason why he lost the first two Charles fights but was rather more impressive in the second two).

Walcott not only had the two more decisive wins against Charles when they met at heavyweight after losing two prior decisions; but he did seem to show more skill against Marciano than either Charles or Moore. I'd also say that Walcott looked very impressive against a rather better version of Louis than Charles had to contend with. I'm not convinced that even the best heavyweight version of Charles would have taken the Louis of a few years earlier to a disputed split decision, which is what Walcott did.

Exactly what he said, that was one of the best break downs i have seen

[DarkTerror88]

Charles for both. The man was so fundamentally sound, it why he success fighting men much heavier than him. If i were to teach someone how to box, i would show them Ezzard Charles as a model. Excellent fighters all three of them, but Charles is the most excellent. It's hard to post without just reiterating what sugar said. Setting the bar high their man, good on you.

[Anthony342]

If Charles is considered the all-time greatest light heavyweight, how come he never won the title at that weight? Did he not get a shot at the title there?

[lazy]

I think Charles had more skills but the other two had more power. Moore was cagey and Walcott had a difficult style to fight but Charles was a better basic boxer.

[wmute]

If Charles is considered the all-time greatest light heavyweight, how come he never won the title at that weight? Did he not get a shot at the title there?

Welcome to the 40s

[StarshipTrooper]

If Charles is considered the all-time greatest light heavyweight, how come he never won the title at that weight? Did he not get a shot at the title there?

Because Gus Lesnevich wanted no part of Charles and avoided him like an STD.

Poet

[Anthony342]

So ducking existed back then too. Has ducking and cherry picking just become more common or did we not know as much about it back then?

[StarshipTrooper]

So ducking existed back then too. Has ducking and cherry picking just become more common or did we not know as much about it back then?

Ducking has always existed, it just tends to be a bit more shameless these days.

Poet

[Bolo Punch]

For me, Archie Moore is the greatest of all three and the greatest light-heavyweight of all-time.

I believe Ezzard Charles to be overrated somewhat, but still a top 25 ATG.

[StarshipTrooper]

For me, Archie Moore is the greatest of all three and the greatest light-heavyweight of all-time.

I believe Ezzard Charles to be overrated somewhat, but still a top 25 ATG.

You know Charles swept Moore in their series right?

Poet