The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

I don’t think Rocky particularly even needs a pass or an excuse for defending against Cockell to tell the truth. Just saying it’s the only title defense that can really be questioned at all imo.

Don had won 10 fights in a row since making a permanent move up to heavyweight after a failed shot at the Brit light heavyweight championship vs. Randy Turpin. Cockell was British heavyweight champ at a time when that still meant something and among those consecutive wins were three over Harry Matthews, one over Roland LaStarza and one over the ancient Tommy Farr.

There were worse resumes out there among ranked contenders so it wasn’t a bottom-of-the-barrel pick for Marciano to defend against him.

 

Yeah but it is one of the title defenses used to knock the Rock down.

 

There’s a couple things at play here:

1) Marciano’s title opposition wasn’t terribly good as far as most of his opponents being eligible for Social Security and training on Geritol. Walcott and Ezzard and Archie account for five of his title fights and none of them was exactly up for rookie of the year.

2) That being said, he fought who there was to fight for the most part … on his way up and as champ. Louis, Charles, Walcott and Moore were from the WWII generation, basically, and were still around. There weren’t a lot of guys turning pro and having productive careers during the war years because most able-bodied men were drafted or volunteered. So there’s a missing generation of heavyweights. The division didn’t truly recover until the 1960s.

So two things can be true.

 

Marciano was no spring chicken either, as he was 28 years old when he won the title and pretty much defended his crown around his early 30's for the most part. Charles was only 33 to the Rock's 31 so it was not that big of a gap.

 

Like a lot of fighters accused of being over-cautious, Charles was always claiming to be a reformed character and that he was going to fight more aggressively from now on. He said the same thing coming into his loss to Valdes.

https://ibb.co/MfkHx9n

 

A completely disingenuous argument, or worse ill-informed.

Charles was closing in on 100 pro fights, largely against some of the most dangerous, most avoided fighters in the history of the sport... Satterfield, Johnson, Valdes, Bivins (many times), Maxim (many times), Ray, Marshall, Burley, Overlin... many to name.

Marciano spent the great majority of his career as a regional club fighter, hiding out in the Rhode Island Auditorium (over half his fights there), knocking off guys with .500 or worse records (15 of his first 34), before stepping up to the geriatric brigade that ruled the roost.

The difference in tread on the tires between these two was vast.

 

It's not the years,it's the mileage on the clock.

 

they have a lot in common, both of them missed the best period of their category for one reason or another. But the effect is the same. They cleared an already cleared category

 

Well, am I not correct in this? It is sad, but if Marciano had fought my great grandmother, the RM fans would claim, that she was a worthy opponent. I am sorry if I hurt someone's feelings, but the sad truth about Marciano's record is what it is. And it is a scandal in terms of poor opposition. RM could run for an all time poorest top ten list of exheavyweight champions.

 

Its's hard to say anything other than he fought an era of great/excellent HWs on the way out. Had he cleaned house with three-four years younger versions of Louis, Walcott and Charles he'd actually have ruled the roost of probably one of the more talented eras.

 

But this was not like it was Ali vs Holmes out there. These guys were highly dangerous fighters that on other night could of beaten Marciano or any other heavyweight not named Ali or Joe Louis pre Ali.

 

comments:

"Charles had nearly 100 fights"

Being experienced is bad? And that is not that many fights. Greb beat Tunney in his 224th fight. Robinson won the middle title in his 125th fight. And there is Armstrong and Benny Leonard, not to mention Archie Moore. Robinson and Moore passed the 100 fight mark back in the 1940's with more than a decade of top fighting left.

"against some of the most dangerous, most avoided fighters in history"

Fighting top opposition is bad?

These arguments turn reality on its head. Lots of fights against the best is judged a negative. In fact winning a lot of fights against the best is what makes an all time great.

"If Marciano had fought my great grandmother, the RM fans would claim she was a worthy opponent"

I didn't realize your great grandmother was the longest reigning heavyweight champion of the 20th century (Joe Louis) or the longest reigning light-heavyweight champion of the 20th century (Archie Moore) or a man voted the best light-heavyweight of the century (Ezzard Charles) by the AP in 2000. I don't think any fighter in history defeated three fighters with such credentials and resumes. At least deal with that.

"World War 2"

Several posters stated WW2 killed off men who would have been the top heavyweights in the next decade. No proof is offered because none could be. It is trying to prop up sloppy boxing history with sloppy general history

This argument is circular in that it rests on accepting a premise that the heavyweight division of the Marciano era was weak. If one doesn't accept this premise up front, none of this has impact.

Considering the war, certainly it wasn't only heavyweights who were shot. So this weakness should go down all the divisions. Does it? From 1946 to 1955--light-heavies, Charles, Moore, Maxim, Johnson--welters, Robinson, Gavilan, Basilio--feathers, Pep, Saddler. I don't see weakness.

"Louis, Moore, and Walcott were WW2 era fighters"

Actually Depression era fighters. All fought a great deal before the war.

This brings up big factors in America which overpowered the impact of the war. One was the fall of the color line in boxing, and we must remember it was still in place in the other sports and in the general society. Boxing was one of the few avenues out and up for a young black man. And the migration of blacks to northern cities opened boxing doors for them which weren't available on southern plantations. It is not surprising that with the Depression in the 1930's, the fall of the color line in boxing, and the migration from southern farms to northern cities, there was a fantastic influx of black talent.

"By 30 they have youth and experience. After that it is all decline"

I don't know what this says about the current heavyweight division. Usyk is 37. Fury will turn 36 later this year. Joshua will turn 35 later this year. But they don't have anything lke the type of pro experience Moore, Charles, or Louis had.

This take also assumes that one can judge an exceptional athlete by what is true of the average. An old man doing well in a sport usually means he is great. Tom Brady wins a Super Bowl at 43. What is the relevance of asking how much he has "declined" since he was 30? Ted Williams hits .388 at 39. What is the relevance of asking how much he has "declined" since he was 30. Both were still better in old age than the young guys.