Does A Prime Marciano Beat The Joshua Of Today?

Should he be crouching? That is opposite of what a big man should do. He is utilizing his height but still has bent knees which is what is correct technique. His guard is at waist level because he's fighting with 4 oz gloves. Having the now normal hands in front of face style would not have worked back then. Every punch would have broken his guard.

I can't think of any fighter from that era that didn't jab in with his rear hand up to protect his chin from a left hook.
Again, having his hands up in front of his face wouldn't be that wise because he leaves his body completely unprotected as well as his face because 4 oz gloves aren't going to offer the protection that 10 oz gloves do.

Willard's style was fine for the time period. Today it wouldn't but that doesn't make him unskilled just the opposite.

 

True but he was still on a 21 win streak and beat the best in the heavyweight division outside of Marciano.

 

Where do you get your stats? Kovalev is 5'11. Look at him next to Holyfield if you don't believe me. The fights he lost at middle he was in his 30s and past prime. In his prime he had two losses at middle: Lamotta and Turpin both of whom he stopped in rematches.

I agree he gets beat at 175 by a lot of guys but Kovalev isn't one of them imo.

 

@choklab - Don't you think Wladimir looked great last weekend? You could probably find aspects of his game where he wasn't as sharp as younger versions but on a whole he did not look like your usual 40+ boxer who is shot, he performed magnificently and as game as he ever had been. I am stunned there is a few posters trying to discredit Joshua's win based on Wlad's age given the fight we all saw. I doubt everyone is propping Wlad from AJ fight up just to help their argument against Marciano in this thread, he was great and better than anyone expected.

Also I don't think you seem convinced that SHW's of the past don't compare favourably to modern versions when the film is there and the difference is clear as day as far as using their size to their advantage and especially the boxing skills on display.

 

Pretty sure i remember Chok debating frantically with you that Moore and Walcott were in some of the finest form of their careers.

 

I do think Klitschko performed excellently. I admired his decision not to hold. He boxed well and moved well. And yet as good as Wlad was his supporters will say "Imagine how much better he would have been if he wasn't coming off so much inactivity, coming off a loss and had been younger than 41 years of age.." this line of excuse is a time honoured entitlement of losing former champions...including ones who are not going into a championship fight off a loss and had been actively moving up the ratings.

I will say this, as I do about Joe Louis, Wlad may have been old but he still represented a world class opponent in his losing effort.

The only differences are that Wlad was much older than Louis and much more inactive than Louis yet he still did better against Joshua than Louis did against Marciano.

 

He may have been older in actual age but you concede yourself Wlad wasn't shot and looked great. Isn't it generally accepted Louis was shot? I am unsure if a younger Wlad defeats Joshua, do you think a prime Louis still loses to Marciano?

 

@mcvey =

 

Louis was no longer the brown bomber, but the greatest fighter of all time even depleted by even 50% is still a world class fighter. Louis against Rocky was about where Sonny Liston was in 1968 when he was still beating guys like Henry Clark or say Patterson against jerry Quarry. That's not a shot fighter although people do use that term if an old champion is still winning at a lower level.

Shot fighters don't win fights at world level.

A prime Louis stands a better chance against Rocky and a prime version of Wlad stands a better chance against Joshua.

 

Chok somehow, incredibly, cannot get it thru his head that Wlad was miles closer to what he had been previously than Holmes or Louis were. Unbelievable really. He'd only just lost the title in his previous bout after winning for 10 years. He wasn't disgraced and he didn't capitulate in this prior bout either.

A while back he showed a complete about face telling all and sundrey what awesome form Moore and Walcott were in going into the Marciano fights, some of the best in their career!!!

CHOK

Charles looked great on film in 1954 and was exactly where Muhammad Ali was in 1974, an ex champion with one special fight still left in him. He had two great wins behind him just like Ali had going into Zaire with a good camp to prepare. Charles v Marciano was the best match that could have been made that year.

Walcott left everything in the ring that night against Marciano. He gave it everything proving more qualities than was seen in almost any other filmed fight
Walcott featured in. Walcott was slick, often safety first. His fights with Charles were quite strategic cat and mouse affairs. Clever boxing punctuated with heavy counter punches. Against Marciano however Walcott was forced into putting it all on the line. The pace was harder and Walcott really was terrific. Without knowing how old he was you would never know viewing the film.

Archie Moore looked as good as he ever did against Marciano ... until he was knocked down. And why shouldn't he? This was a career opportunity he worked harder than almost any other challenger in history. Not only did Moore have to beat both the #1 and #2 heavyweight contender (enough in itself, ask how many heavyweight contenders Micheal Spinks, Joey Maxim, Bob foster, Roy Jones, John Henry Lewis had to beat to earn a HW title shot) but Archie was forced to defend his LH title just months before in order to keep his title. In 1955 regardless of involving a LH champion this was the best Heavyweight fight that could be made.

Another post -

Charles looked great on film in 1954 and was exactly where Muhammad Ali was in 1974, an ex champion with one special fight still left in him. He had two great wins behind him just like Ali had going into Zaire with a good camp to prepare. Charles v Marciano was the best match that could have been made that year.

Walcott left everything in the ring that night against Marciano. He gave it everything proving more qualities than was seen in almost any other filmed fight
Walcott featured in. Walcott was slick, often safety first. His fights with Charles were quite strategic cat and mouse affairs. Clever boxing punctuated with heavy counter punches. Against Marciano however Walcott was forced into putting it all on the line. The pace was harder and Walcott really was terrific. Without knowing how old he was you would never know viewing the film.

Archie Moore looked as good as he ever did against Marciano ... until he was knocked down. And why shouldn't he? This was a career opportunity he worked harder than almost any other challenger in history. Not only did Moore have to beat both the #1 and #2 heavyweight contender (enough in itself, ask how many heavyweight contenders Micheal Spinks, Joey Maxim, Bob foster, Roy Jones, John Henry Lewis had to beat to earn a HW title shot) but Archie was forced to defend his LH title just months before in order to keep his title. In 1955 regardless of involving a LH champion this was the best Heavyweight fight that could be made.

 

How come age and career stage didn't matter with those guys chok? I found the below most interesting. Remind anyone a lot of last weekend??

This content is protected

This content is protected

Walcott left everything in the ring that night against Marciano. He gave it everything proving more qualities than was seen in almost any other filmed fight
Walcott featured in. Walcott was slick, often safety first. His fights with Charles were quite strategic cat and mouse affairs. Clever boxing punctuated with heavy counter punches. Against Marciano however Walcott was forced into putting it all on the line. The pace was harder and Walcott really was terrific. Without knowing how old he was you would never know viewing the film.