The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Nothing.No boxer is prime at 41 years old.
After losing to Marciano Moore beat 1 ranked heavyweight.
Lavorante who was fleetingly ranked on the basis of an upset win over Folley.

 

You really didn't address what I said.

Whether or not the contenders of that era had a lot of losses because they fought each other and there wasn't much ducking is irrelevant.

The facts of the matter are that Rocky's best opponents were in fact heavily worn down by the time HE faced THEM. Whether or not Archie Moore was "at the pinnacle of his career" doesn't change the fact Moore had been in literally hundreds of pro/sparring/exhibition matches and was 38. You are basically dodging the elephant in the room which is the condition of the fighters Rocky faced and their age/mileage. It's a valid criticism.

 

It’s not when considering every fighter fights old and young people. Marciano’s average age of opponent isn’t absurd it’s lower than everyone today by far. The truth is his best opponents were on the older side his young up and comers like Layne, Lastarza, Cockell and Matthews were all prime and decent fighters. But they weren’t as good imo as Walcott Charles Moore and old Louis. Just because they were old doesn’t make them not good wins. We can cherry pick anyone’s record w nonsense but the truth is Archie was damn good as was Charles and Walcott at the time of defeat. Were they at their pinnacle? No but is it fair to criticize? I don’t think so. No one gives other fighters **** for happenstance
Edit I’ll give u an example. No one gives Vitali any guf being the young up and comer and losing to an extremely out of prime Lewis. Had he beaten Lewis would people be slamming the win because of how old and out of shape Lewis was? Or just call it a solid win? Well he didn’t even win he lost as what happens w old and young lions. Old fighters/champs r crafty and not easy to defeat.

 

The division was horrible, likely the worst it had ever been or has been post-Dempsey. A bunch of older, mostly smaller guys from the previous generation held incredible sway over what was left after a World War. The tide retreated and those still plying their trade were suddenly above water.

Wlad was nowhere near as gone as Louis. For one, he could still throw his right hand and time it correctly (see: Joshua fight). I have listed innumerable times the contemporary quotes regarding Louis' shape going into the Marciano bout (or even pre-Bivens). Among those who had watched him over the years some were simply aghast, others just saddened. I will dig these up again when time allows. They were first hand research of several archives.

Horrible, horrible era.

 

Was Louis on a 8 fight win streak? Yes or No? Nobody is saying Louis was prime. But he was capable of beating decent fighters. U must really hate Vitali because he couldn’t even beat the worst out of shape and old Lewis. Because old fighters r useless right? Old fighters r crafty and extremely capable of winning even if they’re not physically what they were. This has been proven time and time again by the likes of Ali, Louis, Lewis Foreman etc.

 

Walcott's performance against Marciano was the best of his career it's fair to say.

 

In fairness, Louis could be viewed as only Marciano's fourth best win. Wlad was still the champion and so the best, or at least a must, win for Fury.

By the way. If you are comparing eras, Louis was just a contender. Wlad was still the champion and on a dominant reign.

"Horrible, horrible, era"

Not for American boxing and like it or not, America dominated heaveyweight boxing from the fall of the color line to late in the century.

 

Not a horrible era ,but certainly not a great one.

 

Eight fights and only 1 of them Ring ranked, Savold ,who was even more over the hill than Louis.

 

You.

Still.

Haven't.

Addressed.

What.

I.

Said.



We are not simply checking the birthdates and seeing how old x boxer was when Rocky fought them. We are checking their mileage/wear and tear AND checking their ages. Moore being 38 in the 1950's isn't the same as being 38 today. Again, Moore had been in 170+ professional matches and had fought for 20 years before he faced Rocky. He was arguably Rocky's best opponent.

You cannot name me even 3 all time great champions at HW whose 3 best opponents averaged over 100+ fights and had been fighting for well over a decade.

No one is "cherry picking" anything. These are simple numbers that take less than 2 minutes to look up. Now address the actual topic at hand please. It's about mileage/wear and tear (how many gym wars, tough matches, length of career, etc) of some of Rocky's best opponents.

 

"The facts of the matter"

Are age and number of fights.

"were in fact heavily worn down"

This is a conclusion and extrapolation from facts about age or number of fights. This doesn't explain why so many old fighters did well and still do well. It is at least on the table that some fighters not only are not worn down, but improve because of increased skill as they learn from active fighting. I don't see how just saying he was worn down explains Archie Moore's career, or Joe Brown's.

 

The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

 

Moore was 41,

 

My exact quote was

"They rated him for years"

I never used the word "many"

Which both the NBA and the Ring did--from early 1952 to early 1954. And highly in 1952 and 1953.

For me that is more than one year, hence years. What I meant was Wallace didn't pop into the ratings and drop out the next month. He was there a couple of years.

I don't see anything to dispute. Wallace was rated by both the Ring and the NBA from early 1952 into 1954 off and on. He made it into the top five in both ratings. He was rated when he fought Charles.