Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

Yes, I know all about his break. But on paper, the Burley performance looks pretty great. Too bad there is no footage.

After the Marciano second fight, he went under .500 if memory serves. Some make the rather absurd claim Marciano suddenly ruined him. I would say he was on the downward trajectory for some time.

 

I think Marciano was one of the most brutal fights for anyone and I would say that there were none of his opponents that were ever the same after fighting him especially in a scheduled 15 rounder because that is where he excelled. This is even true for the younger guys he fought Layne for one had been fighting many punchers (a war with Bob Satterfield where he proved his toughness) and at 34-1-1 and stopping the man that beat & drew him was called by Nat Fleischer as the next champ and next Dempsey.

Guys like B-Hop are fighting at 50 because they were not in many wars and Charles had some early wars but was a very good heavyweight only losing a SD to Harold Johnson that many felt he won and a weird fight to Valdes who would not rematch Charles. He had explosive wins over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield and probably fought his finest fight against his finest opponent Marciano in fight 1 but got destroyed in fight 2 and was never the same.

Its easy for those who do not like Marciano to say his opponents had seen better days but that is not true at the time they were the best around and accomplished pro's B-hop is now attempting to unify against Stevens but should Stevens stop him should that diminish his victory? Is not B-Hop still formidable?

Charles was only a year older than Marciano but had a busier schedule at the time but I think he was still in the area of his Heavyweight prime, give or take and his 2 explosive wins were right before Marciano

Lastarza,Charles,Walcott,Moore,Vingo,Layne to mention a few were never the same after fighting Marciano

I am trying to think of another fighter that ruined guys, Louis comes to mind at heavyweight,Chavez at lightweight,Aaron Pryor?, Duran,Hagler?

still of all fighters I would hate to share a ring with I think Marciano would be one of the last slow death and he is still coming forward, ruining you along the way

 

Guys like B-Hop are fighting at 50 because they were not in many wars and Charles had some early wars but was a very good heavyweight only losing a SD to Harold Johnson that many felt he won and a weird fight to Valdes who would not rematch Charles. He had explosive wins over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield and probably fought his finest fight against his finest opponent Marciano in fight 1 but got destroyed in fight 2 and was never the same.

You see this is where one can take issue with good people like yourself. There are plenty of folks that would debate with you that Ezzard was the best Lightheavy that ever lived until the cows come home. Guys that will do their best to convince you that he was better than Moore, Foster, Jones Jr, Lesnevich etc, etc. But none of these men I've ever met or heard of, have ever claimed that Ezzard Charles was a " great " Heavyweight. Good, but not great. So to me to use him as an example of Marciano's achievement at Heavyweight seems a bit thin.

 

You see this where the issues can arise. I know plenty of folks that would debate with you from now until the cows come home, that Ezzard Charles was by far and away the greatest Light Heavyweight that EVER EVER lived.

Therefore I find it hard to understand why Marciano fans cite the wins over said Light Heavy as " proof " of his greatness.

You see it seems that on the one hand his more dedicated fans tell you he was as strong as a bull, at 187 - 189lbs, but then want to claim credit for the fact that he could beat Light Heavies moving up. It looks like a cake and eat it job to me.

 

Charles had some early wars but was a very good heavyweight,

I think Charles had some solid wins at heavyweight, he never won a light heavyweight title but was better than Moore,Foster,Spinks IMO but chose the Heavyweight division and wanted that title.

I did not once call him a great heavyweight, he was a great fighter but not a great heavyweight but he was a very good heavyweight, skilled, took a good shot for the most part and could punch with either hand. i would give the Charles of the Marciano 1 fight a good chance with many and he fights neck and neck with the best win, lose or draw

 

We are not talking about titles here. I am saying unequivocally there are plenty of people that will go to their graves, and indeed have done so, claiming ( with merit ) that Ezzard Charles was the best Light Heavyweight who ever lived.

And as such it is unreasonable to mention him as a measure of the Heavyweight Marciano's greatness. By the way did he " choose " to go to Heavyweight, or was he frozen out of the 175 division because some considered him unbeatable once he got the title?

 

Charles was a great heavyweight. There. I've said it. Not the greatest all time heavyweight but a great, great HEAVYWEIGHT. Of course there is the argument he was the GOAT light heavy but who says he should be remembered as being great for just one weight class?

Gene Tunny is regarded a GREAT HEAVYWEIGHT then so should Ezzard Charles.

Until taller men chose to weigh over 215 all the time a light heavyweight was just a type of heavyweight within the same weight class. There just happened to be a championship that could be used as a springboard into a title fight for the heavier champion. It was almost all one weight class. So guys like Bivins and Charles and Moore and Johnson were both things at the SAME TIME.

 

No contemporary writers considered Charles a great heavyweight ,why do you?
Could it be that by doing so you elevate Marciano's status?

 

Sometimes contemporary writers are slow to give due credit to a great heavyweight who follows in the footsteps of a trancedent sports figure. It happened to Tunney, Charles, Holmes and to a lesser extent Holyfield. Charles was an Excellant heavyweight and an all time great Light heavy. Similar to Holyfield as an ATG Cruiser and still a great heavy.

 

I broadly agree with this.
Also with the statement that Charles was an excellent heavyweight.
What he wasn't was a GREAT heavyweight.

And after 55years of following boxing I have never seen him on any reputable boxing writers list as an all time top ten heavyweight.

In contrast Holyfield is often on all time top ten's lists at heavyweight.
Holmes is on most top ten's if he isn't ,don't bother to take it seriously.

Tunney on about 25%/ 30%.

The word great is the singularly most overused adjective when applied to sportsman in general, and boxers in particular.

 

As much as I like Holyfield I beleive his standing may slide in time out of many top ten lists. I don't rate Charles or Holyfield in the top 10 but not too far outside of it either. They have similar careers from dominating a lighter division to losing to the best of their era's top heavy more than once.
Tunney again is similar although he conquered his top Heavy -although faded and controversially the second time around. Placing him is tricky do you value leaving in your prime and on top or does his lack of longevity as a HW diminish his placement. I place him above the other two guys because while pure speculation I don't think he would have had a serious challenger until Louis came along and that would of been some run.

 

I would think that any fighter would be more than happy to be considered the G.O.A.T in one division, and Charles has a good claim to be considered as such.

If fans want to elevate his Heavyweight status to suit their own agendas then so be it. But that is " all " they are doing.

 

Anyone claim different? :huh

 

Lets put it this way Tunney was a great fighter and may have been a great Heavyweight but his heavyweight resume is no where near Charles. I firmly believe Charles would beat a lot of the old Champs or win-lose-rubber-match with many.

I rate him over Patterson,Ingo,Sharkey,Carnera,Willard,Baer,Corbett,Fitz, Tunney, Schmeling,Bowe,Liston,Braddock, and all the other split title champs and at least on even keel with Johnson,Dempsey,Walcott, Evander,Foreman close but slightly behind to Tyson,Holmes,Frazier, and behind Marciano,Louis,Lewis and the Klitschko's but that just my opinion

 

I believe Charles was a great HW, and contemporary writers rarely get it right.


At HW Charles has wins over Joey Maxim, Elmer Ray, Joe Walcott, Pat Valentno, Fritzie Fritzpatrick, Lee Oma, Joe Baski, Rex Layne, Jimmy Bivins, Bob Satterfield, Gus Lesnevich, and Joe Louis. He won the HW title and was one of the busiest fighting Champions of all time. This is a stellar resume.

At LHW, Charles beat Moore, Maxim, Marshall, and Billy Smith. He spent much less time sub 174 but the impression he left was that after the war, he was unbeatable by anybody that can make LHW limit. But also for a time, he looked unbeatable by anyone period.

Difficult to seperate the two, Charles at 6'0" 174-180 lbs was capable of fighting and beating whichever LHW and HW he could get in the ring, until he started to become less consistent, finally dropping off completely after the Marciano matches.