Don't compare Beterbiev and Bivol to Marciano ever again.

Does said fighter beat all the fighters that Marciano beat in the nights that he fought them ?

 

I get where you're coming from, but you are omitting some other important context here.

Charles' 2 losses came to the #1 rated HW of the time, Nino Valdes. As well as Harold Johnson (a top 10 ATG LHW) in a very close SD. Neither Bivol or Beterviev have faced such fighters. The 2 wins were against the #10 rated Heavyweight Colley Wallace (201 lbs) and the #9 rated Bob Satterfield, one of the best P4P punchers ever. He had also beaten the #2 rated Heavyweight Rex Layne (203 lbs) a year before the first Marciano fight. Charles wasn't prime, but not being prime doesn't mean you're not quality, which Charles still clearly was. The horrible record after Marciano is an indication of Marciano extinquishing what was left. Because ss you said, wear and tear caught up to him, but it was after that. In those 2 fights against Marciano, he was still a quality fighter that could have beaten the versions of Beterbiev and Bivol that showed up today. The footage and wins both support that possibility.

And as you said, Moore was on the best streak of his life coming in. Having stopped Harold Johnson (who again, is superior to anybody Bivol/Beterbiev have fought) right before facing Marciano, and even had his fair share of wins against Heavies like the #1 rated Valdes. He was indeed 41 years old (or 38 according to who you believe), but he was known for his longevity, very much an extreme case like Hopkins. Why should he be looked as inferior to either Beterbiev or Bivol, when he was still producing better results than them despite his age ?

Yeah neither were prime, but just ticking the boxes of whether or not someone is prime is very surface level analysis, and most posters here do just that with Marciano. And there are some clear double standards here, because they are willing to call Bivol prime at 33, yet see a 2-2 record for a 32 year old Charles without considering the full context, and he is suddenly almost shot. If the fight had gotten Bivol's way, suddenly a close win over a 39 year old Beterbiev would be enough to propel him into top 20 ATG LHW lists, but Marciano stopping a 38/41 year old Moore who by all means was a better fighter than either Bivol or a 39 year old Beterbiev ? That somehow means that Marciano would lose to both Beterbiev and Bivol. I'm not willing to buy that.

As for Foster, I still think he ranks higher than both due to having more depth. I'm not confident in saying that Beterbiev is top 20 worthy after such an unconvincing win. I'm also of the opinion that Foster's resume in itself is not top 10 worthy. He is very much ranked highly due to fame and prestige, and that is actually a thread worthy topic on its own, because there are other cases like him. Maybe I'll get around to it someday.

 

Good post, I can agree with most of this. I do however disagree with the championships round argument. We do have a few cases of Beterbiev fighting at or near the championship rounds, he just never went the full distance (but he has seen the 12th round before, albeit in an easy fight iirc). Imo, it's not that Beterbiev is at his most dangerous in those rounds in general, it's that he was at his most dangerous there today. He was very uncharacteristically nonchalant during most of the fight, and I assume it was in order to preserve energy at the later rounds.

Sure, he may never have been pushed as hard before as he was today, but I don't think we were as far away from seeing a prime Beterbiev at 100% as you make it out to be. The Gvozdyck fight in particular is the one where we probably saw something close to that.