Why was Marciano's era not strong?

Of course he does. He dosnt care if Whyte could beat Elmer Ray or not though..

 

I do get your point, not this shallow point but your actual point about how easy it is to get a ranking these days.

To some degree I do agree with you. It seems relatively easy to cherry pick a way to a top rating.

But would Floyd be a great fighter if he was born today? At LHW I've no doubt, but not at HW he wouldn't.

Back to the more shallow point, I think it's quite an intriguing fight actually. A great great fighter who's known for his chin against a less than stellar fighter with a 50 pound advantage. Is the skill level of Floyd enough to overcome the weight advantage of Whyte?

I wouldn't like to bet on this fight actually. I mean Ward is probably the best skilled LHW we have and I see no reason to favour him over Whyte. If I did have to bet I'd go with he underdog.

 

I don't think Floyd Patterson was a great fighter at heavyweight IN HIS OWN TIME, so it doesn't say a lot to say he wouldn't be a great fighter at HW if he were around today.
It doesn't say anything about a difference in era.

I'm not a big booster of Patterson but he ought to be able to beat a pudgy journeyman like Whyte fairly easily.

 

One man will never define an era, there's a collection of men from that time which has always been my point.

Gun to my head I'd take him on points, but would he survive the right hand Whyte caught Joshua with?

 

It might never have landed because Floyds gazelle left hook could get there faster.

Watch how Tyson beat Severese to the draw with Floyd hook within moments of the first round.

 

He wouldn't even catch Patterson with that right hand.

 

Over 12 rounds that's a bold statement.

 

Whyte's a bum.

 

I always think that's a strong word. These men put their lives on the line for our entertainment.

 

Archie Moore gave away 35lb to knockout 20-2 Embrell Davidson.

With the kind of record Davidson had when he fought Moore, a fighter today like Whyte could expect a world rating yet (quite rightly) this win meant nothing to Moores legacy.

 

How do you think this guy would do today?

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=x3N5w2G7b4I

 

I wasn't comparing Fullmer to Robinson. My point was that because Robinson was there Fullmer had to win the title from him rather than from a younger man. Why does this prove the division weaker?

Robinson at 25 is not the issue either. The issue is that Robinson was an aging champion who was champion because he was better than the younger men. This has often been true in boxing history. Was it easier to win the light-heavyweight title from Archie Moore than from the comparatively young Freddie Mills, Willie Pastrano, or Jose Torres.

 

A single outlier doesn't equate to a weak division. The top third of the division being boxing geriatrics raises suspicions.

 

But was that even the case in Marciano's era ?

Charles was champion at 28, and still a contender at 32 or 33, that's not geriatric. He was only two years older than Marciano.
Walcott was only briefly champion, and had lost to a young fighter Rex Layne that same year.
Archie Moore was exceptional, winning his first world title at 36 or more,but his time as heavyweight contender didn't overlap with Joe Louis at all, or even Walcott.
Nino Valdes was only 29 or 30 when he was ranked #1 during Marciano's reign. He was actually slightly younger than Marciano.

Layne, Henry, Baker etc. were younger, and were in the top 5 when Marciano was coming up.