200 LBS or less : Marciano Challenge

I can give you Moore's ,he said it was 4/5 years before he met Marciano.

Walcott was rated in 45.46.47.48. 49. Half the decade, I'd say his prime was therefore mid to late 40's.

In 45 he beat Baksi , Dudas,Murray ,Sheppard.
In 46 he beat Bivins,Oma, Gomez ,Maxim.
in 47 he beat Maxim x2, and Ray.& lost a split dec to Louis.

In the three years of the 50s that he was active in he lost 4 of his 6 fights, therefore to me he was past prime, and in decline

 

Those that have not done their homework believe Dempsey was a wild swinger in the ring. This is so far from the truth it's really laughable. Dempsey was the master of short compact punches and combinations. Look closely at his KO win over Sharkey (ultra short left hook preceded by ultra short killer right uppercuts to the body), his multiple knockdowns over Firpo (some of the slickest short punching in hwt boxing history), the KD over Tunney in round 7 (all super short punches). Understand when you watch Dempsey two astute observations....Tunney " Dempsey was no wild slugger but instead a perfect blend of boxer and puncher" and Arcel "Duran was the closest thing to Dempsey I ever saw". Read Dempseys book concerning power punching. It's obvious he had a deep understanding of short power punching. B

 

In your opinion. In my opinion the most likely scenario is Marciano stops Dempsey late. This might offend you but Dempsey is nowhere near the finisher you think he is, and nowhere near the puncher joe Louis was.

 

Yes I do. In a fight between two swarmers where power is equal, the fighter with the better stamina and better chin usually wins. Marciano has that edge. Dempseys low left will be wide open for marcianos right hands all nigh. Marciano was a lot more composed in the ring, he kept his cool. Jack was careless reckless and sometimes paid a price for it.


Do you really believe in your heart Dempsey was as good as you say despite not proving it in the ring in his own era?

Marciano was a pressure fighter who produced more one punch knockout victories over greater opposition than Dempsey did. This is a fact. Dempsey took out ham n eggers early, and struggled with the good fighters

You seem to be so into this word, finishing. So what if Dempsey finished a 37 year old rusted fat Willard and glass jaw beanpole Fulton, so what?? its not that impressive. those guys didn't know how to fight!

Joe Louis proved himself a far better finisher in the ring against far far far better opponents

 

Marciano was only floored by hall of famers for quick flash knockdown so. Dempsey was knocked out cold in 1 round by a 37 year old journeyman. Enough said :good

 

So the cutoff is the end of 1949? Why? What happened from 1950-1952 that caused him to become a lesser fighter in your eyes? Please provide examples?

Walcott produced two knockout victories over hall of famers in here primes in the 1950S and nearly recorded a victory over a prime Marciano. What makes you think he suddenly declined from 1949 to 1951 when he won the title?

Moore- why is the cutoff 1953? What happened from the end of 1952 to 1953 that caused Moore to become past his prime. What is a decline in performance e? Can you illustrate with examples?

From 1953-1955 Moore defeated 3 hall of famers, 2 by knockout. He also defeated 3 top 5 rated heavyweight contenders. He went 12-0 during this period.

Where was the decline?

 

Moore-

So you say Moores prime ended sometime in 1951. From 1952-1955 Moore went 21-0 recorded 5 wins over hall of fame fighters, and defeated three top 5 rated heavyweight contenders. Again where is this sudden decline in performance?

Walcott: in 1945 he lost to 11-14 Johnny Allen. Would the heavyweight champion version of Walcott 51-52 have lost to Johnny Allen?

In 1946 Walcott lost to Joey Maxim and Elmer Ray. Would the heavyweight champion version of Walcott lost to these men??

1947 was a great year for Walcott definitely the START of his prime

Even after the Louis fight, Walcott put on some of his career best performances. He took apart the dangerous swede Ollie tandberg in a viscous display, knocked out hall of Famer Harold Johnson in 3, destroyed top 10 ranked Agramonte in 7', put on a boxing lesson to undefeated European champion 6 foot 5 Hoff, knocked out a prime champion in Charles, and nearly beat Marciano.

You say 4 out of 6? Walcotts record in the 1950s was 6-4 but three of those losses were to hall of famers Marciano and Charles. He avenged the Charles loss TWICE in the 1950s, once by devastating kayo. The only bad performance he has in the 50s was the Layne loss.

Bottom line is this..in the 1950s Walcott knocked out two hall of famers in there primes, nearly beat a 3rd hall of Famer. He also WON the heavyweight title in the 50s, don't forget that.



Use your eyes, Walcotts performance in Marciano I was easily one of the two best of his career.

 

There is confusion whether a fighter is free to get down BELOW 200 to fight Marciano, or take them at the weight they fought. Since Rocky fought in the 180's it would give them an advantage-like letting '66 Ali or Frazier lost very few lbs...

Moore Charles & Walcott...near enough prime, but Charles better earlier, & while Walcott about as good as evr, I do not know if his endirance was after 12, or more of a case of Rocky's pressure..

A few guys named around 50-50.
Dempsey himself said Rocky hit harder. And their defenses were about even, though very different. Dempsey & many others faster.

Trouble is Rocky NEVER faced a great slugger.
though his resume much better than some like Dempsey.

Under 190 helps his case.

You might ask who else as SLOW as him around his size could be so well rated at his weight.

Answer: nobody.

 

My rough cutoffs are based on my assessments of their fight footage and everything that I've read about them over the years. Those men were aging after hard careers (and lives), and there were questions about how much they had left in the tank before they fought Marciano. A prime Walcott would have been way more dominant against Maxim and other other guys who gave him tough fights in the 50s.

BTW, you're counting Walcott v Harold Johnson as a win over a prime HoFer? That seems a bit disingenuous (unless you just don't actually know much about the fight). As does giving these guys HoF credit for beating the aging versions of each other.

I'm not surprised that a past-it Walcott nearly beat Marciano, but I think that says just as much about Marciano as it does about Walcott. I've been pretty vocal--I think that Marciano is wildly overrated and would have had a difficult time against any number of 200-lbish fighters, let alone the big athletic heavies of the 80s.

 

You haven't done enough research on the era. Buy walcotts book you might learn something

Walcott Maxim happened in 1946-47, not the 50s. All three fights were split decisions

Harold Johnson hurt his back falling to the canvas when he got floored by a Walcott punch in the 2nd round.

Charles when he lost to Walcott was only 30 years old coming off a 24 fight winning streak. How is that aging? Walcott beat Charles right before he fought Marciano

You see greatness in Qawi but not in Marciano. That's a big problem.
You are not watching enough film of Marciano closely

 

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.:good

 

That is your opinion.



It was not the opinion of Jack Sharkey who fought them both .

 

Moore says his prime ended then I guess he would be a good judge? The evidence of decline imo is in his mobility and the shortened bursts of punching .

Walcott lost an 8rds dec to Allen then kod him in3 rds.

He was always capable of inconsistancy as is evidenced by him dropping decs to Layne,Ray,and Maxim,fights he should have won.
Charles' prime was at light heavy, as was Johnsons's.

Tandberg and TenHoff are not adequate sticks to judge Walcott's ability by.

The flaw in your argument is you contend Walcott was prime when he defended against Marciano , yet less than 8 months later he was washed up and retired?


I say : NO ATHLETE IS IN HIS PRIME AT 38 ESPECIALLY A BOXER

 

Marciano was floored by a 37 years old past prime champ and a 38 years old lightheavyweight.

He was in his prime.

Dempsey was stopped when he was raw and young, and dropped once when prime, by a bull of a heavy who ,whatever his shortcomings as a boxer, could hit like a truck.

Dempsey was only dropped one more time, when near exhaustion in his last fight against Tunney.

 

More to the point were they washed up?

It has already been explained to you Charles had seen far better days when JJW beat him. What is so difficult to understand about that?:roll: