Why was Marciano's era not strong?

QUOTE="lufcrazy, post: 18236858, member: 44674"]I always think that's a strong word. These men put their lives on the line for our entertainment.[/QUOTE]
I don't refer to any pro boxer as a bum, it takes courage to get in there ,and whatever their skill level they deserve a bit of respect,imo.

 

I am a Marciano fan who admittedly has become a bit reactionary to the intallation of Rocky as the unstoppable force saint . I am a waiting for the "How many Rockys would take to beat the Germans" thread. That said I may be cynical, I think he is an all-time great who as much maximized his own gifts, as well as facing the best available.

However, looking at his biggest wins I become circumspect. Louis was a shell when they met. Charles had fought almost 100 times by the timethey met. Walcott was known for being the oldest ever and we don't need to discuss Ancient Archie . . . it's right there in the name.

Nino Valdes has never been that relatively impressive to me. He didn't win close to a third of his fights when Rocky won the belt.

The fact that Layne, Henry and Baker were top contenders does not convince me it wasn't a weaker era .

 

I don't think it was a strong era either.
But I don't think the division was any stronger when Sonny Liston came along a few years later.

I haven't noticed that much exaggeration of Marciano's abilities in this forum lately.

 

Well, how much do two "outliers" prove. Joe Louis and Archie Moore were rather exceptional. They are the longest reigning heavyweight and light-heavyweight champions of the 20th century. Not too surprising to me that they would remain effective fighters beyond the age average champions do. Same with Bob Fitzsimmons at the turn of the century. A triple champion and the only man to hold the middle, light-heavy, and heavyweight championships. Does his being champion and top contender at an old age prove that much in a direct comparison to lesser fighters.

This is the central weakness of the age argument. It assumes that if one fights in an era in which the division is dominated by great fighters who are older, the division is automatically weak. But it wouldn't be if the champion or top contenders were far lesser (or even mediocre) younger fighters.

It is the same in other sports. In 1957 the 39 year old Ted Williams and the 36 year old Stan Musial were major league batting champions. Did this prove the major leagues were weak in talent? Actually, they beat out such as Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and Mickey Mantle. They did because they performed spectacularly. Musial hit .351--Williams hit .388
Their success didn't prove anything was weak. It just showed what great talent can do at an older age.

It is also good to remember on the age thing that it depends on the individual. Ben Hogan peaked out in 1953 in his forties at an age in which Tiger Woods seems to be succumbing to athletic old age. Doesn't mean that Hogan's era was "weak"--it just means he performed better as an older man.

 

As far as Fitz is concerned I think it was a weak era for both lhvys and middles and not deep for heavyweight either.As far as I'm concerned near 40 years old contenders doing well can indicate a weak era ,but it definitely indicates that these were very good fighters who retained some of their skills late in life.I just get p*ssed when people try to tell me Moore was prime at around 40 years old!

 

Nobody honest gave Whyte a world rating.

His resume was (rigthfully) critized as being ****.

Some people saw some talent in him, and he had beaten Joshua as an amateur.
But it was so easy to see his punches were looped and his defence was ****.

The only thing he proved in the Joshua fight that he can take a punch.

Davidson would have gotten a world rating today.
Just like Whyte has never been top 20.


I'd say his win over David Allen (post Joshua) is decent for British level. Not world level though.

 

I feel bad for picking on Whyte, he's a novice pro it's not his fault there is no dominant champion, no worthy challengers or very many competative fights in the SHW division.

in the post war era nobody would know who Whyte was. back then, top fighters fought more often against each other and therefore there was no interest in the Dillion white level until somebody actually beat a name guy. Yet in this weak era people do know who whyte is..

The key elements to a stronger era is Competative fights, worthy challengers and a dominant champion.

 

In this era we have youtube, live streams, boxrec and forums.
So of course we know every damn guy including Dillian Whyte today.

 

I agree, this is part of the problem. Youtubers getting all excited about the spectator ending of a mismatch.

Outside of actual boxing fans, a competative fight is seen as more boring. And boring points win is seen as damaging to a prospects profile since its harder to look like king Kong in a competative fight.

I often wonder if the emphasis is on keeping the real fighters apart so the kids get more king kong blow outs to get all excited about. Maybe that's how come the title challengers are so old now?

A real fan of boxing wants to study how the knockout was orchestrated rather than just watch the endless slo-mo highlight reel compilations (to music) of guys hitting the back of their heads off the canvas.

So it's understandable to dismiss an era where the best guys are smaller...

 

You are forgetting a shop worn Charles. Where did I that the proved it was a weak division ?

 

That's boxing fans. The general public love the highlight reels and spectacular knockouts. That's why TV and promoters are obsessed with the King Kong effect. Get a tall muscular guy and put him against severely overmatched part timers (who took the assignment that morning) and you have highlight reel material for the YouTubers to put to music.

 

I like to know two fighters are actually fighting, competing for real.
There was nothing in Floyd-Pac that suggested it was for real, anything more than a well-paid sparring session.

One of the worst things about boxing is that so many of the fights are fake, just exhibitions, 'carry jobs'.
The other problem is mismatches and blatant 'dives'.

Strangely, people rarely want to talk about it. Even hardcore fans like to carry on as if everything is real.