The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Archie was a wonder of the world how he kept getting better or at least staying on par as a fighter while he advanced in age. He was a more than worthy challenger, FAR more worthy than many who have challenged for that title before and since.

I’d say Rocky did OK for himself. I think he took on (and mostly took out) all who distinguished themselves in that era.

 

This. Despite his age Archie going into the Marciano fight was arguably on the greatest run of his career and about as motivated as a fighter can get.

 

a good little group of geriatrics, lightheavies and white dopes. The best the post-war world had to offer until the rise of the American Athlete in the late 50's and 60's.

 

All time great fighters. Then and now. World champions. Current world champions in Walcott and Moore. It is true that Charles, rated as one of the best p4p ever, was as good on film against Rocky as he had ever been as a heavyweight. Even old man Louis, not at his best by any means, was still younger than Usyk is now. By any standard the Marciano resume stands up.

 

Walcott, a guy who lost every third time he entered the ring, is an ATG fighter in your book? That's some book.

The mummified version of Louis who stumbled into the ring with one arm was, at that point, an ATG fighter?

And Charles looks positively spastic and sloppy against Marciano, well foreshadowing the .500 career he would have from that point on.

Just the wrecks of ships past sunk that were revealed by a receding tide of talent. Marciano was there for the fruits of the paucity. Good timing was his in spades.

 

Do u ever stop moaning? Roll out some new content for a change mate, your routines old hat

 

Moore was so geriatric, he was beating younger guys like Baker and Valdes.

 

What does that say about Baker and Valdes? Not much, I suppose.

 

Well, considering Valdes was rated number one at one point and Baker was rated number two, and both of them were 28 and 27 years old when they took losses to Archie, I would argue it says quite a bit about how good Archie was. But of course, you’re just gonna say Archie Moore sucked because he was older even though he beat two men in their late 20s.

Such a delusional hater who’s literally dismissing arguably Rocky Marciano‘s best win, all because Archie Moore was older, yet he was cleaning out top contenders in their primes.

 

You know, I would totally agree with you that Archie Moore would be a weak scalp on Marciano‘s record if he had been beating a bunch of nobodies, but he wasn’t, he was beating top rated guys at heavyweight and light heavyweight and regaining and defending light heavyweight titles after the loss to Marciano, yet you wanna sit here and dismiss all of that in an attempt to down Marciano because Moore was older. Pathetic.

 

It just shows how bad the 28 and 27 year olds were at that point... that an old twat from light heavy could wallop the lot of them.

 

LOL

So what do you have to say about Archie Moore’s 22 fight win streak before he lost to Marciano and the 37-3-2 record he secured after losing to Marciano?

 

Someone doesn’t know their heavyweight history in the 1950s, considering tons of fighters floated between light heavyweight and heavyweight because the size difference was so narrow.

 

Sorry