Walcott v Marciano 1 Ages Reversed

I'm illustrating that as late as the34th and 35th fights of his career Marciano was still fighting men with losing records not all the time, but enough of it! Out of those last 10 fights 5 were against men with losing records,and only 2 had winning records so whats the difference? For example compare it to Deontay Wilder's record ,Wilder gets a lot of stick,[much of it deserved ,]for not fighting top men but of his 38 fights only 5 were against men with losing records and the last of these was in his 14th fight.

 

Its not horrendous, and as you say he didn't have a long amateur career, but Rockista's don't always take it on board.You seem to be of a more sensible persuasion!

 

You are clearly a fan boy who makes a snap judgement without disseminating the facts.I think Ive establised that the age difference between Walcott and Marciano,[nearly 10 years ,]made a significant difference,that is seen by the fact that everyone who made a pick voted for Walcott!
For the record I don't hate Marciano,I have said many times on here that he was a great fighter and a fine man who defended his title against who was around in his era, he could be asked to do no more.
What I do find exceedingly tiresome however, are fan boy Rockista's like yourself who think he ate lightning and sh*t thunder!
Marciano enjoys a singular place on this forum his followers solemnly aver he had:
"excellent balance" " clever defence," "superhuman power" "inhuman stamina" and many other ridiculous superior attributes.You are clearly in this category.Jog On!