The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

As mentioned time and time again, a champion can only fight the best available challengers of his era, he cannot realistically fight challengers or opponents from the past or future. Life happens to everybody, World War II just happened to the fighters of Joe Louis era, what can they do?

 

Unsurpingly, you don't really understand. I take no position in how that effected him, my point was that it's sillly of you to huff and puff like McVey is doing something immoral when he doesn't agree with you on that.

 

Please provide his trainers quotes on the subject.I've asked you for evidence his fighting style was affected by the tragedy.If its that well researched it should be easy for you to provide some proof!
In his very next fight he savagely took out Elmer Ray and his punches were described as "hammering".

I asked you in which fights can we see him holding back,not going for the finish?

You have produced NOTHING.

 

Stating how he should have felt is;
EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
Self awareness isn't your strong point is it!

 

"Valdez beat Charles, WAS NOT INSTATED AT #1 as you falsely claimed, and Charles regained the spot with high quality victories over Satterfield and Wallace. After the Valdez fight, Charles talked about his need to be more aggressive "
NONE OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE
After beating him Valdes took Charles place as the number 1 contender .
1953
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Earl Walls
6. Don Cockell
7. Clarence Henry
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Bob Satterfield
10. Coley Wallace

1954
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Earl Walls
6. Don Cockell
7. Clarence Henry
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Bob Satterfield
10. Coley Wallace

Valdes lost the number 1 spot when Moore defeated him.

• • "Moore was the reigning World Light Heavyweight Champion, and Valdes was the No. 1-ranked heavyweight contender."
  • "Ezzard Charles' dream of becoming the first man in history to regain the world's heavyweight championship lay all but shattered today under the wreckage of his surprise loss to obscure Nino Valdes of Cuba. Valdes stunned a crowd of 3,500 last night as he took Charles' best punches and came on to win the unanimous 10 round vote of two judges and the referee. Charles entered the ring at 191 pounds, a little over his usual fighting weight, and he allowed that the extra poundage made him a little sluggish." -United Press
    • Unofficial UP scorecard - 5-3-2 Valdes
    • Gate - $15,612
    Post fight comments
    • "I just had a bad night." -Ezzard Charles.
    • No mention of needing to be more aggressive!

Ali v Wepner?

• "In the ninth round, Wepner stepped on Ali's foot and hit him with a right to the ribs, which knocked the champion flat on his back for an official knockdown."

Johansson v London?

"The 12 round bout, billed as another step in Ingemar Johansson's march to a return shot at the heavyweight title, ended with Johansson staggering to his feet, his eyes glassy and his arms hanging at his side. Johansson, 200, apparently had the better of the dull fight until the final minute. He concentrated on his left jab to pile up points, and never landed his famous right hand. Brian London, 206, carried the fight but he could not land a solid punch until the final seconds when he stunned Johansson with a left and crashed him to the canvas with the right. The count had reached four and Johansson had just lurched to his feet when the bell rang. Referee Andrew Smythe of Ireland, the sole judge, awarded the fight to Johansson." -Associated Press

Although Johansson was the European heavyweight champion, this bout was non-title and scheduled for 12 rounds due to the EBU deeming London an unfit challenger for the European title.

Post fight comments:

• "I would have stopped the fight if the bell had not saved Johansson. He could not have continued." -Referee Andrew Smythe."

 

Fair enough. The point is being the longest reigning champion makes one exceptional. It is not like Marciano beat a prime Joe Louis, but still Joe Louis wasn't losing to just anyone. Only the best ever beat him. So he shouldn't be dismissed utterly.

"The fact that they were better than the young guys around"

First they weren't in fact better than Marciano. He beat them all.

Does Archie Moore beating Harold Johnson prove Moore, even if old, is an exceptional fighter? Or does it prove Johnson is a mediocre young fighter?

Do you use the same logic for the 1970's when the "old" fighter, Ali, beats the young man, Foreman. Ali in 1974 was almost the exact same age as Charles in 1954. He went on to hold the title for years. The 1970's was the era in which the old fighter beat the young ones. Not the 1950's. I would be willing to bet that the average age of champions was lower in the 1950's than it was in the 1970's. Charles and Marciano were champions in their late twenties to early thirties. Patterson and Johansson in their twenties. Only Walcott for one year was a really old man as champion, like Ali. Or later Holmes or Lewis or Wlad.

But that is what makes Ali exceptional.

Some on this thread throw terms like "old" and "shop worn" together. Moore had a lot of fights. Walcott though had relatively few fights for a man who fought 23 years. And he had no amateur fights. Was he that "shop worn"? And Moore of course would be "shop worn" some time back in the 1940's before he even becomes the longest reigning champion in his division.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you that much, I think. I just don't buy the weak era take.

 

Johnson was good much longer than Marciano. I have no issue with anyone who rates him above Rocky. (Jeff would be another matter for me)

But McVey was somewhat green and Jeannette very green when Johnson beat them. Johnson beat a lot of top men, but almost all were old or small or green.

In Johnson's case, the films of his opposition are less valuable than Dempsey or Tunney, because of his extensive black opposition who were never or rarely filmed.

 

"disingenuous"

or something. I think you mean dishonest or misleading.

Bringing up boxers who were great after 90 or 100 fights was right on point. You brought up the numbers of fights proving Charles was shop worn. I just pointed out that boxing history is rich with men who not over the hill after 100 fights. It was a bad argument.

"Charles was definitely past his prime"

I wouldn't dispute that. My issue with the Marciano critics is that many rely on the cliff analogy. You are either at the peak or fell off a cliff and are now nothing. Many, if not most, fighters have a slow decline. They are no longer at their youthful best, and have more frequent off nights, but can pull it together for a big fight. Ali, for example. I think this is where Charles was in 1954.

 

Result are results. You can spin a narrative all you want but scoreboard don't lie. After Baroudi, Ezz went on to fight bigger and better opponents as he himself aged but still KO'd above his baseline percentage. And then, around 1952, the wheels started to fall off.

 

The Ring magazines reporters are old, drunk men. Rocky is on the list of the 4 worst heavyweight champions ever.

 

Ali being "almost the exact age as Charles",is a false comparison.Ali did not have the wear and tear of nearly a100 fights on his clock as Charles did.
O Brien was the same age as Johnson when they fought but Johnson was prime ,O Brien was not.
Tom Sharkey was past prime at 29 too many hard battles.Frazier was past his absolute best at that age too,whereas Ali was making his comeback at 29
Louis and Walcott were the same age but Louis was over the hill, past his best ,Walcott was at his best.
Thirty seven years old Louis' legs gave out on him against Marciano,his right cross was a thing of the past,he said himself it did not automatically."leave him" when he spotted an opening.Louis said his last fight in which he felt like his old self was against Mauriello,that was way back in 46 ,5 years before he faced Marciano!


Its not just age its the mileage on the clock Ali and and Charles were both 33 but Ali had 47 fights on his clock, Charles 96!
Fighters age at different rates, hard battles and styles contribute enormously to that.

Moore stated, in a taped interview his legs were gone for the Marciano fight
You are being very disingenuous here, and your counter arguments are singularly unconvincing.

 

Yes - and they were probably the worst ever in heavyweight boxing history. They were either old and shot or small or fat. Only two of his opponents as champion was vs. 'real' heavyweights. 38/39 year old 188 pound Walcott (very small heavyweight even for that time), and LaStarza, 185 pounds. The rest was beefed up former lightheavyweights. Walcott and LaStarza would compete as (very small) cruisers or lightheavyweigts in todays boxing. It may seem that I don't like Rocky which is very untrue. I think he was a decent man with the heart of a lion and he was relentless in the ring, that I recognize. The, if I may say, sad truth, is, that Rocky is maybe the most overrated ever in terms of level of competition and historical importance. He never faced a true, young, skilled big heavyweight, say, on the level of a Tim Witherspoon, Berbick or Razor Ruddock. Either of these men would stop Rocky in less than 3 rounds, if I'm kind to Rocky. Yes, yes, all the 'it was not his fault, that there were no big heavyweights, bla bla', but it remains a fact. Rocky, good, likeable man, but in pure boxing terms he just SUCKS.

 

Critics on here can criticize him all they want, but the fact is, he was a 184 lb. heavyweight who would be a cruiserweight by modern standards.
He fought who was there, at his time, just like most fighters do (or are supposed to do).
He won all his fights. That's it. That's all you can ask of someone.
Folks on the internet can bash him to death but they know nothing about boxing and wouldn't last 10 seconds in a boxing ring.
I think the biggest reason for the hate is, he was an undefeated white guy who didn't run his mouth like many of the modern prima donnas do.