Why was Marciano's era not strong?

It doesn't depend if it was good to watch.

All of your first paragraph is shite. Sorry.

I'm not on about the champion or individual results. I'm on about the best guys. look who fought for the vacant belt, Moore v Patterson. Neither of then would be ruling the HW roost today.

You say you're not on about individual results and then try to quote individual results.

It isn't my rule. I'm not on about an individual champion.

I'll try one last time to explain it. For me the reason his era was weak is because the best guys were all LHW and CW fighters. Take the average weight of any year in Rocky's reign. Compare it with later years. Maybe even some earlier years.

If you're gonna come back at me with individual results again you might as well not reply at all.

 

Cruiserweight just didn't exist in that era so I don't see the point other than the obvious one that the human race has gotten bigger so the heavyweight champions are bigger. Undeniably true, but I don't think it is of use when dealing with historical context.

 

I'm confused, are you saying that the era was weak because they were smaller then they are now?

 

I'm not dealing with historical context. I'm saying why it is perceived as weak now.

Rocky fought the best he could. Doesn't do his era any favours when thinking how successful they'd be today.

 

Yeah.

Rocky fought the best he could, but the era is now perceived by me to be weak because they are all CW and LHW fighters.

I don't know if it was weak at the time or not. Walcott, Charles and Moore are all ATG fighters, they just wouldn't make a HW dent today imo.

 

yes but lufcrazy keeps saying a great era cannot be a great era if the champions fought in previous division's...to him this is some kind of proof?

 

Not only WWI, but the Spanish flu, which killed more people than the two world wars combined. Nor were they mainly a bunch of old and feeble folks. The flu killed because the body's immune system overreacted to the viral invasion. The young were actually more vulnerable because they had stronger immune systems.

I don't agree with the WWII argument, and wouldn't agree with a WWI & Spanish flu argument either.

I honestly think the WWII argument is dug up mainly to knock Marciano. There are so many better arguments to use against Dempsey concerning whom he didn't fight or didn't defeat, so why bother with talking about death rates due to war or illness.

 

No that's not what I said.

 

if you "don't know" if the era was weak at the time or not, and therefore don't know enough about it, wouldn't it seem a bit silly to write it off just because they were smaller than they are now?

Especially when the "Now" is a time being a universally accepted time regarded as "weak".

 

Your argument is the same as I guy who called up a radio talk show I was listening to a few years back and argued that the Oakland Raiders football team who were about 3-13 that year were really pretty good as they would have easily handled the 1960's Lombardi Packers who won five championships. The largest Packer was 260 lbs. The Packers simply wouldn't be big enough to compete today.

I think this is undeniably true, but worthless. If you are a loser in your own era, you don't become a winner because you supposedly would have been a winner generations ago.

I think historical context is really everything. I don't know how you can judge anyone in any field w/o understanding their historical context.

 

Not silly at all, the OP posed a question, I answered it.

That's the reason I think it's weak.

You're second paragraph proves my point actually, we both know how much the current era is dismissed by people, but how much of a chance would you give Charles, Moore, Walcott, Cockell, Jackson and Patterson at becoming the top men?

I have said numerous time, Rocky defeated a slew of ATG fighters. He fought the best men he could. But for me, the reason it's weak is the size of those fighters as I don't think they'd make many inroads in even a weak division like today.

Maybe they would, I don't know, but that's my opinion.

 

Rocky, Charles, Moore, Walcott, Patterson are p4p great fighters. I've never said anything to the contrary.

The OP asked why it's seen as a weak era and that is my response. It didn't seem to produce a murderers row of HW fighters.

 

Just on the WWII and heavyweight boxing, the carnage was greatest in Europe, but Carnera aside, were the European champions smaller in the 1950's. Hein Ten Hoff, Heinz Neuhaus, and Franco Cavicchi were, I think, taller and heavier than such as Schmeling and Uzcudun.

It is largely Carnera making the 1930's look so big.

 

It is what you said. You said

 

And in fairness, Marciano, Walcott, Charles, and Patterson were heavyweight champions, which by definition means they could defeat any man walking the Earth in their time in a boxing match, regardless of size. Heavyweight has always been an unlimited division. Your point is that the men who dominated it back then were smaller than the men today. Same as football, basketball, baseball, etc.