The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Your premise is that having nearly a 100 fights is a plus? Charles had been a pro for14 years when he faced Marciano.imo he was past his prime . The very fact that todays heavies have had less fights means they are fresher and still able to perform at their best into their late 30's.
Harry Greb was in decline at 32 ,Stanley Ketchel past prime at 24
I also disagree with equating a 37 years old fighter of the 50's with one today, Walcott was referred to as GrandPappy and Old Man River in boxing magazines of the 1950's ,nobody says that about todays older heavies.
The fact that prewar heavyweights still dominated the early1950s highlights just illustrates the dearth of young talent in that period.
This was recognized and commented on by AJ Liebling,WC Heinz ,and Budd Shulberg among others.
Louis was no longer the Brown Bomber ,at 37 he was getting by with the remnants of his jab and was kept away from punchers, what he had been bears little relevance to what he actually was when he faced Marciano.
Moore was 41 years old.

The fact that Walcott and Louis retired after facing Marciano tells us where they were in their respective careers.

 

Minter,Robinson,McGuigan,Griffith, all killed opponents, do you see any difference in their post peformances after these tragedies?

 

Yeah I did a double take as well when I saw that. If a fighter has fought in over 100 fights, their's almost certainly going to be some wear and tear at the least.

Not even to mention the damage Charles took in those fights.

 

We know how Charles ended up, and Armstrong and Robinson too.

 

On the outside looking in, properly not, but how can we know how they really feel in the heat of battle, there might have been times when each, or all of them, held back from throwing another punch, or punches with the same ferocity, moreover isn't Griffith on record saying the Paret tragedy affected his fights thereafter, what else can that mean ? over the years I have spoken to Minter, McGuinan, and Bugner and all three have spoken about not being quite the same after their opponents deaths, as you would expect.

 

It's amazing how much Rocky fans fail to grasp that so many of his opponents had crazy mileage. 3 of his opponents (Louis, Walcott, savold) retired immediately after losing to Rocky. Schkor had 1 more fight then retired, Cokkell had 2. Charles already had a considerably long career spanning over a decade and multiple weight classes. Other than Layne and Lastarza, the majority of his best opponents had multiple losses when they faced Rocky, including some pretty brutal KO losses and/or double digit losses.

Yes some of these names were hall of Fame worthy. Yes some of them had produced some good wins prior to facing Rocky and had something left in the tank. But to downplay or ignore these facts means you are being dishonest about the overall quality of his opponents. I have yet to see more than a small handful of Rocky fans keep it real when it comes to this. He was a hell of a champion who worked hard and always did his best, but his era was not that good and the overall quality of his opponents was sometimes lacking in multiple areas.

 

comments

"Your premise is that having nearly 100 fights is a plus"

It has an upside. Experience and learning skills. This is the old wear out or rust out argument.

"I did a double take as well when I saw that"

Shouldn't have. Just look at when Harry Greb, Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, Archie Moore, etc. reached 90 to 100 fights and what they accomplished after reaching those totals. Few would know who Moore or Saddler were if their careers had ended at their 90th fight.

"Walcott was referred to as grandpappy"

Did you consider that this might be because perhaps he was a grandfather? I don't know but he sure could have been. He married in his teens. If he had a daughter who had a child in her teens, he would have been a granddad in his mid-thirties. Being a granddad or not being a granddad doesn't make one older or younger than his years.

"The fact that Walcott and Louis retired after facing Marciano tells us where they were in their careers."

I guess the same place Dempsey was in 1927.

Retiring doesn't necessarily mean you no longer can fight. It is often that a man who has been at the top no longer sees any reason to drag on his career when it is obvious he is no longer the top man in the division.

"It is annoying how much Rocky fans fail to grasp"

I think most grasp it, they just don't accept it. Also, however valid these criticisms are if not taken to extremes, one must ask compared to whom? Jeffries? Record built on old and small men, several coming off long layoffs. Johnson? Long record but almost everyone was old or small or green. Dempsey? Didn't beat the three best of his time--Tunney, Greb, and Wills. Tunney? Little besides Dempsey at heavyweight.

And there was also the color line.

I used to buy into the old-timers were best, until I saw the films and realized that Marciano fought better competition on film than the old guys do on film.

 

I'm asking what tangible difference there is on film between Charles pre Sam Baroudi fights and his post Baroudi bouts?
Nothing sad about that and it is absolutely relevant to statements made by some here.
How many fights of Charles have they seen before the Baroudi fight?

In Charles very next fight 3 months after the Baroudi tragedy he kod no 2 heavvyweight contender Elmer Ray,I'm therefore assuming Baroudi's death did not dramatically affect how Charles fought.
"Hammer-fisted Ezzard Charles racked up a knockout over Elmer Ray today and called for a shot at light heavyweight champion Gus Lesnevich. The fast moving Charles hanged the aging Ray right out of heavyweight boxing with a left hook at 2:43 of the 9th stanza." -United Press

• Elmer Ray was the 2nd ranked heavyweight in the world going into this bout"

The problem is many just slavishly repeat what they have read without ever troubling to question it or research it.

Charles went on to score a further 21 stoppages in his career.

 

You've seen footage of
Denver Ed Martin
Frank Childs
Fred Fulton
Billy Miske
????????

 

Give it up. You're making a spectacle of yourself.

Charles was past prime and McVey has every right to question what effect the tragedy of killing an opponent had on him.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree 100%.
When sweeping statements are made I require proof of them,if none is forthcoming ,I discount them as just slavish, sheeplike repeating of unproven sayings that have become part of the fabric of boxing without any tangible evidence to back them up.
The fact that Charles ko'd the no2 rated heavyweight in his very next fight and was described as being "hammer fisted" in doing so, tells me the original premise is BS.

 

No I haven't. But what do these men have to do with my comment? To quote myself:

"I saw the films and realized that Marciano fought better competition on film than the old guys did on film."

I think this is clear language that I am talking about fighters who were filmed.

If the point you are trying to make is that there are opponents of the older guys who were not filmed, okay, but my take is they were not the top opponents of the old guys while their better opponents are on film and can be judged.

 

Bringing up other boxers to support your position, is disingenuous to the extreme, because it doesn't matter how well THEY did after 100 fights. We know Charles was definitely past his prime by the time he faced Marciano.

It's like someone disputing Quarry was done at a mere 30 years old, because countless heavyweights were still champions in their 30s.