Head to Head Marciano against anyone under 190lb

Because he's just barely bigger than Roy Jones and instead of fighting one fight against John Ruiz and then never dipping his toe back in the heavyweight division, he made his entire career at heavyweight and chose to battle both Klitschkos, Ibeabuchi, Tua, Povetkin, Holyfield, Oquendo, McCline, etc. His name would have been uttered in the same breath as Jones and Toney whenever people talk 90s early 00's pound for pound if he'd first captured a belt or two at the lower weights instead of zipping right by them.

Also, since so many people here want to make a case that small heavyweights like Rocky, Dempsey, and Langford could have successful careers in modern times, Byrd is a go to example of what can still be achieved by a smaller man.

 

Patterson's era as champ was 56-62. His title fights were an aged Moore (who still went 30-2 for the rest of his career), Jackson, Rademacher, Harris, London and then Johansson x2 and McNeeley. Not better than Marciano's reign… not by a long ****ing shot. Liston had no reign essentially. So, chronologically from 1956 till 64 was worse than Marciano's reign. You have no argument to the reverse.

 

Nonsense. Floyd Patterson clearly faced the better opposition from prime Liston and prime Ali, much harder competition than the aged Walcott, old Louis, elderly Moore, and past prime Charles. Honestly, Patterson probably could have done just as well as Marciano against that opposition, but the fact that the competitive level had risen ensured that he was quickly beaten. Likewise, Liston ran into prime Patterson and prime Ali which are two opponents who are definitely better than any opponents Marciano faced.

You claim that Floyd and Liston didn't encounter stiff competition because they were dethroned too early. Isn't the fact that they were dethroned the proof that they ran into stiff competition? And I didn't say that their reigns were better. I said that their careers had better opponents, that there was a higher caliber of competition in their time the sixties versus the fifties.

 

Holyfield, prime Charles, prime Moore, prime Walcott, Dempsey, Tunney, Greb, Billy Conn,
etc all beat him

even the Roy Jones that KOd Griffin would decision the bum Marciano

Marciano is not untouchable. He barely squeaked past a beaten down, worn out, past prime Ezzard Charles and even after 15 rds could not finish the former light heavyweight

Joe Louis was completely bloated, washed up, past prime, beat a bunch of no names prior to Marciano, and was fighting to keep the IRS off his back. last fight of Louis' 17-year 70 fight career, no credibility whatsoever for this win

Marciano struggled BADLY against 38 year old 16/17 loss Walcott who had 69/70 fights
first fight the BUM was getting easily outboxed by an old geezer. needed a miracle to knock out a past prime senior citizen

Marciano was in danger of getting stopped on cuts in a rematch against the smaller, light heavyweight, worn out, past prime, 10/11 loss Charles with over 90 fights and barely squeaked out a decision in the first match

Archie Moore - 19 losses, 175 fights, 39 years old washed up past his prime light heavyweight. the BUM got dropped by this completely washed up light heavyweight. and struggled again prior to a knockout

Marciano NEVER in his Overrated career beat one elite natural heavyweight in his prime.

 

He's no Andre Ward, that's for sure. Ezzard Charles, Walcott and Marciano should count their blessings that this phenom was not around them to terrorize the heavyweight division. Right, Ovid?

 

I'm not sure what you expect me to do to prove that a fighter has aged and is no longer as good as they were. Their height and reach don't change. Maybe they have a little more fat on their bones, or some scar tissue but outwardly they still look the same. They keep the same technique they had as a younger fighter, but the difference is in things like reaction time. If you measured them at say the age of twenty-five and then again at the age of thirty-five you would see slightly slower punches, slightly weaker punches. The number of punches that land on them has probably gone up, like Ali said, he could see the same punches coming but couldn't get out of the way like he used to. Plus, with the accumulation of punches and injuries an older fighter won't have the same punch resistance they once had and it's easier and easier to knock them out. Then their punch output will probably suffer with their stamina, so that they throw fewer punches than compared to the fights of their youth.

I really don't understand how you think that 38 year old athletes could possibly be in their prime and peak conditions.

How is that highly unlikely? Common opponent: Archie Moore. Marciano KO's him in 9. Patterson KO's him in 5. Patterson beat Moore better. Why wouldn't he do the same with Marciano's other opponents, assuming he found them in the same diminished state that Marciano found them?

 

I didn't say that he'd be a monster dominating the division. I just included him as having an outside shot of beating Marciano. I think most of the best light heavyweights would beat Marciano. Ward is a little bit smaller, but might have the footwork, speed, and jab to keep him at bay long enough to decision the rock. He'd still have height and reach advantages and if he didn't cut weight would be within ten or fifteen pounds of Marciano's fighting weight. If you have sufficient technique 15 pounds isn't an insurmountable obstacle.

Besides, I can't see Andre Ward doing worse than Jimmy Bivins in the same time period. In their primes I see Charles and Walcott both stopping Ward since they have as much or more technique as he does and are slightly larger. Marciano is vulnerable to Ward because while he is somewhat larger, his technique is not as good, and I generally pick technique to win over raw muscle.

 

An older fighter may have as much or more punch resistance, & power is the last thing to go. WIth modern training some guys can peak, or maintain their peak, near the late 30's. Look at all the better HWs today.

Though overall they decline physically, they can be better in terms of ring smarts & efficency. Rocky's Holy Trinity of "Old Men" were close to their very peak. Though Walcott did tire at the end, he fough great before that, & Charles & Moore looked sharp.

Joe Louis had declined more, but given his great skills, he had further to slip.

 

Wray ,the name is Wray, and the statement was to illustrate what power Dempsey had.Willard had a top chin, until he ran into Dempsey that is.
Archie Moore was an old man when Marciano beat him the fact that he was still doing ok just proves how good he was in his prime,not that he was still prime.He himself stated his legs were gone when he fought Rocky.Those highly skilled HOF's were all past their best. No one in the 50's or 60's considered Walcott or Charles more than middle of the pack heavyweights champions. No one puts Moore in the top 25 heavyweights .

Louis said he would have stopped Charles inside 6rds if he had been in his prime.After the Ali fight Moore said he could not have beaten Louis, but that Ali would have beaten Joe.
It's entirely plausible that Marciano beats Dempsey ,the alternative result is just as likely. Dempsey was a huge fan of Rocky's and so am I .but my eyes are open when I evaluate him.,
Whether Moore had more boxing nous than Carpentier is a moot point.
He may have had more talent but that is not the same thing, both Loughran and Tunney called him a great fighter.
Brennan was a good fighter as was Miske ,certainly better than Lastarza or ****ell.

 

You came on here telling us where these men were rated I just corrected your inaccuracies.
I didn't make a big deal out of where they were rated YOU DID .After I proved you were wrong ,you now say where they were rated doesn't matter."You can have your cake and eat it too?" Bob Dylan
Instead of admitting you were wrong on some points you have subtly rephrased them.

My reply was a counter to Seamus stating that Moore had won his last 6 fights I pointed out that 3 of them were not heavyweights , two of the others fought Moore at 175lbs or under, [ they were challenging Moore for the LHVy crown ,] and one of them was a middleweight having his first fight at lhvy.Of the others Baker had lost 2 of his last 3 fights, one by one round ko.
Valdes was on an 11 fight winning streak yes ,how many were rated opponents? Two. Prior to that he had lost 4 in a row. One a near shut out to 176lb Johnson.Moore beating Valdes is good but he was reprising something he had already done as had Johnson whom Moore beat 4 out of 5.

Moore's 45 fight winning streak? twenty four of them were Lhv'ys or middleweights.Of the heavies[several were marginal lhvy's] ,3 were rated.Not sure if Baker was. Long winning streaks? Lamar Clark. I think he would have probably beaten most of those 24 lhvy's and middles that Moore did.

 

your winning streaks mean absolutely NOTHING

prior to his loss to Cotto, Martinez in 55 fights had only one clear and convincing loss to Margarito. even his decision loss to Paul Williams was highly debated. in 55 fights, only one clear loss is pretty impressive on paper.

but then you factor in his struggles with Chavez and Murray immediately before Cotto, on top of his 39 years of age and beyond shot knees + shoulder surgery, and the win does not hold much value.

as for your flawed rankings logic, Martinez was also considered the number 1 middleweight, or 2 if you want to stretch and give the unproven Golovkin the number 1 spot. Martinez was a top 10 p4p fighter at the time too, but those rankings are 100% MEANINGLESS given how past his prime Martinez was

I don't care how long Archie/Ezzard/Walcott's win streak was, or what their rankings were. the fact is they were not at their best, and just because you manipulate statistics to make the BUM Marciano look better than he really is will not change the fact that all of Marciano's "big" wins were a bunch of washed up beyond past prime smaller men.