Rocky Marciano vs. mid-to-late 1940s Heavyweights

Let’s assume Rocky Marciano was active about five years earlier (born in 1918 instead of 1923) and would be as good as he was in the real timeline. It doesn’t matter whether that makes sense in terms of trainer, management, World War II etc.. as it is purely a fantasy scenario.

How do you think he would fare against post-WWII Joe Louis, younger versions of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore or possible opponents like Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins and others?

It’s an often overlooked but very interesting heavyweight era. Curious to hear your thoughts.

 

The era Marciano would have really struggled in sorta ended in like 1943/1944. Thats when the size of HWs took the nosedive that allowed Marciano to have his run. Going back 5 years was still a favorable era. He would have lost to Louis and probably Charles and doesn't have a path to retiring as the undefeated HW champion but otherwise its not a harder era. Elmer Ray and Lee Murray would still around but it'd be late in their careers when Marciano would have the best chance of beating them.

Marcianos era was better then the late 40s IMO the division got far deeper. Marciano just didn't fight that depth or the guys most likely to beat him.

 

He would certainly be a top heavyweight. But he'd be in with a slightly younger and more formidable Joe Louis. He'd also be up against prime versions of Walcott and Charles. He struggled with older versions of all 3 in real time. He'd definitely have less of a chance at being undefeated and may have to win a few rematches.

 

Like when Joe Baski was supposed to be a big deal, and they wanted Lesnevich in tournament for the world title?

He'd of done fine, accept Charles was in his prime and that would have been a hell of fight!

 

The war is a big hurdle. A pre-war Conn beats him but not a 1946 version. Louis of anytime about there beats him. A livelier 1948 Ezz beats him. Guys like Sheppard and Ray and Murray and Thompson all have a good chance, at least 2 of the 4 would turn the trick. He'd be a slightly better version of Phil Muscato or Pat Valentino. Pick your dago.

 

Yes, because Muscato and Valentino could throw 94 power punches in the 15th round of a fight.

I just don't get the Marciano derangement syndrome.

 

I did a punch count of Marciano versus Walcott and many rounds he was throwing around 30 punches.

I can throw 90 punches a round against a geriatric. It ain't that hard.

 

Ezzard Charles was 32 an one of the best to ever do it, so...

 

But at 32 he was losing to Harold Johnson, Nino Valdes and soon to John Holman. By 32 he was becoming a .500 fighter.

 

Those were good fighters, and he beat Satterfield, Coley Wallace, and Rex Layne in the same period. No one is saying he wasn't past his best, but he was still excellent.

 

Just some thoughts:

Joe Louis: pretty much a 50/50 fight, especially against Louis before the Walcott fights (like vs Conn or Mauriello). I’d lean very slightly toward Marciano there, but I’d definitely favor pre-WW2 Louis.

Walcott: also very open. I’ve always had the impression that the Walcott who fought Louis was just a bit better than the one who fought Marciano (younger, quicker on his feet). On the other hand, I think Marciano vs Walcott I wasn’t Marciano at his best either (still a bit inexperienced, nervous, bad cuts, etc.). And Walcott was pretty inconsistent in general (gave away some fights he probably shouldn’t have and had a lot of very close ones as well) Overall, I lean to Marciano, but a loss is absolutely possible too, depending on the night.

Ezzard Charles: 50/50 as well, maybe slightly favor Charles on his best night.

Elmer Ray: I think Ray was kind of a wild card. At his best, he could compete with Charles and Walcott, even scoring wins over both. He just couldn’t sustain that level for long since he was the oldest of the three, at least officially three years older than Walcott, and not everyone can age like Walcott, the “Camden Methuselah.” Ray was even considered the hardest puncher of the three.

You can argue against him by pointing out that he clearly lost several exhibition fights against Louis, but those took place in 1949, when Ray was already fading at the very end of his career, arguably due to vision problems.

You can also point to the fact that he got stopped in one round by Turkey Thompson, another hard puncher, but in heavyweight boxing anything can happen. Even Joey Maxim, another tricky fighter who was stopped only once in 116 fights, got stopped in one round by Curtis Sheppard.

In any case, after that Thompson loss, Ray went on a run of 40 wins over more than three and a half years before losing an extremely close fight to Walcott. I’d probably still favor Marciano, but who knows… there’s no footage of Ray, which makes it even harder to judge.


And of course there were other contender-level guys as well, some already mentioned. I’d also like to see a younger, lighter, and probably faster version of Archie Moore, who was one of the top fighters at heavyweight too, with for example a couple of wins over Jimmy Bivins. Surely not a favorite against Rocky, but a tough and interesting opponent for sure.

Overall, even if Rocky came out on top, it would be way tougher for him. He probably wouldn’t stay undefeated either, and split series would be very possible, of course depending on who he fights when and how often.

I think this era is a bit overlooked and underrated, and there’s also way too little footage. H2H it’s obviously not as strong as the late 60s or early 70s, but that was a new post-war generation of athletes with better amateur backgrounds, no WWII disruption, and better opportunities and management for black fighters.
Still, P4P the mid to late 40s hold up really well. Easily better than the first half of the 40s, with the exception of Joe Louis, and I’d even say better than the Patterson/Ingo period, at least until Sonny Liston reached the top.

 

Small correction: if I counted correctly, Elmer Ray actually had 50 wins in a row instead of 40.

 

He was on the precipice of being shot. Whether Marciano caught right before this or right after one can judge. Outside of tremendous heart, he looks like a failing fighter in the Marciano bouts, a bit wild and desperate as though his physical faculties are betraying him, which would be understandable given his career.

 

The best guys he fought were also the best of the second half of the the 40s: Louis Walcott and Charles. He just fought them that many more years past their primes.
Had he instead fought the Louis that knocked out Walcott or the Charles that whipped Louis or the Walcott that dropped Louis twice and lost a disputed decision the results would surely have been less favorable to Rocky. How much worse is a matter of debate. In my opinion he probably fights them all tough but loses to each.

 

It’s a helluva run … but there’s not many fights in that long string where he would have not been the overwhelming favorite. Toward the end of it he started stepping up in quality but most of them were journeymen. Some were basically beginners.