Half of this list is from the late 50s - after Marciano retired. Thus not his era. He also didn't even fight one of the remaining 3. The ordering of this list ain't to my taste either but it doesn't matter, eh. Aside from Bivins and Louis, I'd call none of them great. And both Louis and Bivins hardly fought and were very far past it. Williams is the best of that group and he wasn't in Marciano's era. He was after it. Moore was 38 for Marciano, he peaked 15lbs below their fight and 7 years earlier. He was an excellent fighter still, obviously, but he wasn't prime. He wasn't close to it either. Satterfield was a chinny gunslinger who polaxed what he landed on and fell asleep after being hit with pillows. His defining win over Williams is him catching an unprepared Big Cat. Charles was definitely past prime. It's not even up for debate. And he still pushed Marciano to the brink, a younger fresher Charles could beat him. Yes, you are correct. Should we drop it here?
It's an interesting project and even though compubox stats are potentially misleading and even inaccurate, the fact that Marciano's opponent connect percentage was so low is very surprising. Did they give the punch stats for each of his individual fights by any chance? Any individual rounds? A while ago, I read this review from Hauser, which wasn't too flattering: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/box...the-numbers-legacy/10zpedj878ucp1j9uesixqshfm
id pick Povetkin to be good in any era. I think with better refs he probably beats Wlad...that holding was the most pathetic thing I’ve ever seen in a ring. Anyhow this is taking away from Marcianos defense.
No , the book gives a breakdown of Ali’s fights. I have yet to read it and to be honest got it just to view the stats of everyone which is located in the back of the book. Which I only recently peaked at. I will get to the Ali fights and meat of the book at a later date. Compubox has its faults but plenty of pluses as well. I gave a breakdown of all the categories available for all the people they have it for.
Did they separate Ali's stats? Like have a seperate one for his career up until '68, and then 71-82? Heck, just remove all 3 of the Frazier fights from the equation and his percentage would be at, like, 12%
From what I’ve peaked through they do separate his career. He doesn’t fare well compubox wise compared to some others but compubox doesn’t measure power, chin, style, or who really won.
I'll just stay with Emanuel Stewards analysis of Marciano, he was the greatest overachiever in history who was clumsy and lacked footwork.
I don't see the validity of the book if they don't have it on a per fight basis. Also how many full fights of Marciano are available? Because without the full fights you can't have valid punch stats.
Compubox is iffy at the best of times. I'm sick of people scoring rounds based upon the compubox numbers or using them to prove that x beat y. Boxing doesn't work like that. I do think that Marciano gets underrated defensively, and I think that while he wasn't that hard to hit he was hard to hit clean. A bit like Walker. However, it rolls too far the other way on a lot of occasions imo, people claiming he was better defensively than he was.
I don't think that any swarmer has ever attained greatness, without doing a lot of work on their defense. Working in what defense you can, makes the difference between the style being viable, and non viable against the best of your day.
