Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

Except Bruce W and Savold were not nearly the best men out there. This sort of thing proves the weakness of paper champions, not the quality of the best fighters of the time.

 

Solid.

 

Who is the great heavyweight young contender who emerged in this time period, who had not been already boxing pre-1946? Boxing had been dealing with the integration issue for decades. Many whities wanted Jackson to get a shot, Johnson got his and somewhat spoiled the waters for the next generation, but then Louis finished the process. Boxing was way ahead of baseball and even football, which initially integrated in the 1920's and then took steps backward.

That Louis was still a factor when he had aged so poorly, when his punches became glacial in speed and robotic in delivery, is proof that his decline was not as precipitous as that of the division.

 

True on all accounts. But in 1950 Joe Louis was ranked #1, Lee Savold was ranked #2, and Joey Maxim #3. The fact that a man of Savold's stature and Louis who was noticeably deteriorated along with Maxim being ranked so high, might not be an indication of a terribly strong division to some. It wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the worst. But I don't know if it was as great as some make it out to be. What you had in the early fifties was a star packed division with a lot of great names. What isn't always clarified is that most of them were " fallen" stars or stars from other divisions. And while I'm not well educated on the matter of the BBBC or its effort to fabricate a new champion, it certainly looked farcical from a layman's perspective.

 

"Who is the great heavyweight young contender who emerged in this time period"

Rocky Marciano. Other young contenders included Rex Layne, Roland LaStarza, Clarence Henry, Harold Johnson, Bob Baker. How many eras produced more good young contenders?

"Louis" "punches became glacial" "robotic"

He lost the combinations of his youth. I don't see on film that individual punches, especially his left, were necessarily slow. One reason he was still tough was that he was much bigger than most of the other fighters of the era. I agree to disagree to an extent on this one.

"integration"

There were critics of segregation, but it impacted, and really other than Louis himself integration didn't have full effect pre-war, but did post-war.

Ring Record Book Yearly Heavyweight Rankings 1930-1939--How many listed black fighters. I think six (Unknown Winston, Larry Gains, Joe Louis, Leroy Haynes, Jack Trammell, Roscoe Toles)

1946-1955-How many listed black fighters. I think twenty-three (five alone in 1946)-(Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Jersey Joe Walcott, Lee Q Murray, Curtis Sheppard, Turkey Thompson, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Rusty Payne, Omelio Agramonte, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Bob Dunlap, Nino Valdes, Earl Walls, Coley Wallace, Bob Satterfield, Hurricane Jackson, Jimmy Slade, Archie Moore, John Holman, Johnny Summerlin, Young Jack Johnson)

*Louis was the pioneer, but it obviously took some years for this talent pool to be fully tapped.

**If anyone knows of a mistake I made on these listings, please post a correction. I am pretty good on who these fighters were, but there are always gaps in knowledge.

 

Is part of this thread based on a question of how Rocky would match up against the best of the bigger men to come ? If so, it is far more of a size and style match up against the best of the biggest than anything else .. I say the same as always .. he was a terrific 185 pound fighter who won on strength, power, conditioning, chin and heart .. he would not have almost any of these advantages against the best of the big men and would not match up well ..

 

Fair enough point, except for Louis. Why would you expect such a great former champion who had lost only to the current champion and then beat a fair young contender not to be ranked high until he loses to a lesser opponent, which he never did. Sure he had gone back, but from heights at which he had no peer.

Savold seems to be there because of holding the BBBC paper crown.

The next three Ring contenders were young men, Henry, Baker, and Layne.

The NBA yearly ratings in 1950 also had Louis and Savold one and two, but then went Layne, Walcott, Oma, Marciano, LaStarza.

*a point I would make is that whatever the Ring or NBA ratings, Savold lost badly to both Louis and Marciano, and Maxim lost every time to Charles and Moore.

 

It's pretty much a similar situation as Ali c.'76-'77, or Holmes and Foreman in the early-mid-1990s.

 

Dildy Vibratorre was pretty big.

 

This doesn't prove your point at all.
All through history the ethnic demographic changes. It doesn't imply segregation-integration within the professional ranks so much as it suggests some ethnic groups become more/less inclined to take up professional boxing in first place.

 

From 1937 when he won the title until ,1948 when he retired,Louis had 26 fights, winning them all, only 3 went the distance.
From 1950, the beginning of his comeback, until he retired for good,Louis had a further 10 fights.
He won 7 of them with only 3 stoppage wins , 1 was because of cuts, one was over a no hoper, and the other was over an old warhorse ,[Savold] who was himself 36 .
People who trot out Marciano's win over Louis as proof that he could handle a big heavyweight with power are, at best self delusional ,at worst economical with the truth .

 

Nobody here is saying Marciano beat the real Joe Louis just that he beat a real contender (who was still beating rated fighters) still called Joe Louis who happened to be over 210lb.

At anyone time there are rated fighters who have worse KO ratios than Joe Louis had in his comeback. It dosnt make them any less of a contender. Louis was still decking men in 1951 anyway. And with the right hand!

 

I suspect Marciano would have destroyed Nino Valdes.

 

He wasnt scoring kos on his comeback, and against Bivins it was commented on that he rarely threw his right hand. The Joe Louis of his comeback was a relic.The success he had during that period illustrates two things, how good he was in his prime and, how average the division was post war.

 

For a semi-crude banger he beat a nice variety in his opponents.

Subtle movement and power of Walcott. Speed and angles of Charles, and power, angles, and experience of Moore.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I this proves to me that weight and reach don't make a difference when it comes to all-time greats. They overcome the odds.