How would M. Spinks have done against Dempsey's and Marciano's Challengers ?

Well said, there are certain Marciano haters that can not give his opponents proper's for whatever reason, who knows why

 

He had the perfect foil to show off what skill he had left.

If you insist that Charles was a great fighter against Marciano, you must explain that his sudden lapse into mediocrity afterwards was either a wild coincidence or caused by Marciano. I don't buy either explanation.

 

A sudden lapse into mediocrity can absolutely be explained after two hard losing fights back to back. Especially if the guy is matched hard and fights too often without enough time to recover like Charles did. The list is endless of fighters who took a dive in form after just one fight that was just too hard. Imagine Ali and Frazier fighting three months apart? Those Marciano v Charles fights were tough. Rocky might have won them but he retired before Charles. They were tough on him too.

 

I see Moore was telling the thruth when he said he was 2 years younger than his Mother claimed ,which suits your argument.
But lying when he said he had no legs, which doesn't.
Interesting:think

 

Seamus..

You explain these numbers to me


Harry Kid Matthews- 29 years old # 6 rated in the World

Record prior to fighting Marciano: 81-3
Record after losing to Marciano: 8-3-1

Rex Layne - 23 years old # 6 rated in the World

Record prior to fighting Marciano: 34-1-
Record after losing to Marciano- 17-16

Roland Lastarza- 26 years old- # 1 rated in the World

Record prior to fighting Marciano- 53-3
Record after losing to Marciano- 4-5

Don ****ell- 26 years old- # 2 rated in the world

Record prior to fighting Marciano- 66-11
Record after losing to Marciano- 0-2

Ezzard Charles 32 years old. # 1 rated in the World

Record prior to fighting Marciano- 83-10. 11-2 in his last 13 fights.
Record after losing to Marciano- 10-13


Jersey Joe Walcott- 38 years old. Heavyweight Champion.

Record prior to fighting Marciano- 51-16
Record after losing to Marciano- Never fought again.

Joe Louis- 37 years old- # 2 rated in the world.

Record prior to fighting Marciano. 66-2. 8-0 in his last 8 fights.
Record after losing to Marciano- Never fought again

Archie Moore- 38 years old. # 1 rated in the world. LH Champion.

Record prior to fighting Marciano. 148-19. 45-1 in his last 46 fights.
Record after losing to Marciano- 39-3.


There seems to be a trend here. With the exception of the ageless Archie Moore, guys who came in fighting Marciano looked as ready as they could be, with high Ring Magazine ratings and a legitimate shot to beat Marciano by the press. Once the fight was over, we never heard from these men again. Both the young and the old fighters Marciano fought. Now either this is the biggest coincidence I have read about, or Marciano's style was responsible for ruining other fighters mentally and physically. I lean toward the ladder. I am not the only one who formed this opinion. If you research articles from the mid 1950s, boxing writers touched on this subject as well.

 

Yes this is true. However, Charles still had nice hand speed and great inside fighting ability, which allowed him to beat many good fighters in 1952-1954. After 1954, he really lost it physically.

HEGrant,

I disagree on your Ellis pick over a 1954 Charles. You talk about Charles being past it at age 32, Yes he was. However what about Ellis? He was 30 years old in 1970 and coming off a 19 month layoff when he fought Frazier. That is a long layoff. That was definitely not the best version of Ellis in there vs Frazier. I would take Charles over Ellis, because Charles was the better technical boxer, better inside fighter, still had the faster hand speed, and had the much better defense. Ellis might score points in flurries, but Charles would land the cleaner more effective blows and make jimmy look silly at times with his skills and cleverness. Don't forgett, in 1968, Jimmy was lucky to get a decision over a 33 year old Floyd Patterson who had definitely lost his legs by that point. I had Patterson winning 9 rounds.

 

The real question here is does Spinks go undefeated against Marciano's competition. I would say definitely not.

 

The bottom line here is Walcott, Charles and Moore still beat a lot of Heavyweight contenders and even champions on the night they each fought Marciano.

 

Ezzard Charles of 1949 vs Rocky Marciano would have been a really interesting fight. I think Charles in his prime has the right style to defeat Marciano. With that said, Charles would have to go through hell to win that fight, and I don't know if Charles would be prepared to put himself through that madness.

Toss up. A great matchup.

 

Seamus,

How do you feel about Michael Spinks vs Rocky Marciano? Michael Spinks vs Jack Dempsey?

 

excellent point Suzie and if we started a thread about fighters who ruined other guys I would be hard pressed to find anyone as fierce as Marciano as a guy who ruined you. With Layne it was the one-punch shot-gun after (weaver did it to Tate) with Walcott it was an attrition thing and this snorting bull breaking you down and then LATE POWER BLAST, rematch was a common sense subconscious brain/body/memory/ reaction

with Charles it was a great conditioned champion with heart and skill in fight 1 but the beating and the 2nd time around improvement from Rocky round 1 was like starting rd 13

LaStarza he punished and savored

With Louis it was raw strength,power and a mercy shot

CoKkel was a one-sided beating against a man who tried to survive and go gallently

only Archie had a good career after the Rock but was battered beaten and damaged from Marciano, he could not fight well against top heavyweights well again although he gave it a go 8 years later vs Ali and managed to land a few decent shots on Ali but Moore suffered from that brutal beating