Was Marciano superior defensively to Tyson, and Frazier?

Cokkel is not beating jimmy young.

Even if he did, so what? You just admitted he would lose to Douglas. Cokkel was ranked #2 in Rocky's era. Tucker had the IBF belt and was ranked within the top 3 of several organizations. So use your own logic. If Tucker was better than Cokkel he was AT LEAST good enough to be #2 in the world in Rocky's era. This whole protected/untested argument sounds silly with that context. And if an untested fighter is good enough to beat Douglas who would later go on to become undisputed champion he obviously had some decent skill. There's no getting around that.

1-Bull****. Billy Conn moved up in weight to challenge Joe Louis. He quit the LHW division to move up to HW in his own words before fighting Gus Lesnevich. That wouldn't make sense if his title was 1 of 2 in the same division. Archie Moore also held onto the LHW title while continuing to fight heavyweights. His belt was not on the line when he fought Rocky, otherwise it would have technically been the equivalent of a unification bout between a WBC and WBA champion for example. Rocky did not win the LHW title because it wasn't on the line because they were NOT the same division.

2-I never said Charles, Moore, etc weren't legitimate heavies by the standards of their era. My point was that they had long rugged careers moving up in weight before facing Rocky which contributed to their mileage. And it's very hard for a guy to move up in weight and challenge guys at the top level, let alone a young prime hard hitting champion like Rocky.

I supposed Walcott landing a devastating left hook that knocked Charles completely unconscious wasn't a savage ending to a battle?

Even if the other 3 bouts weren't that explosive, that was still 4 fights of 2 top ranked guys going at it. That is going to add a lot of wear and tear to both men. Not to mention all the training camps and sparring. Stop being facetious.

Again I never said Charles wasn't making a name for himself at HW. You are completely missing my point. I'm saying Charles had to fight twice as hard to keep up with the big boys considering he was a natural light heavy and suffering from ALS by the time he got HW. He had sharp punches but wasn't a devastating hitter at that weight so he often had to go the distance--which adds more wear and tear on his body. Something you like to ignore. He had a whole very long career in multiple divisions before he fought Rocky and still fought very competitively. Going the distance the 1st time and giving him a bloody nose in the 2nd bout. In comparison, Rocky had a short amateur career, was younger, and hadn't been in as many wars.

Yeah but those are AVERAGES. The averages get worse if you only include the best 4 opponents Louis, Walcott, charles, moore. All of them past 30. This does not apply to Tyson and Frazier, nor did their opponents have nearly as much mileage.

Anthony Joshua has nothing to do with this. I think his era could have been great but it's quickly turning out to be mediocre if guys like Povetkin, Pulev, Stiverne, Ortiz, etc can get #1 rankings as 38-40 year olds.

First of all Walcott failed to become champion in MULTIPLE attempts. He was a career journeyman who still needed to work his 9-5 because he just wasn't getting the results to earn him the big paydays. He was similar to Braddock with double digit losses and living a very Rocky Balboa type of lifestyle. It wasn't until his miraculous KO of Charles that he finally won the title, and then lost it immediately. So bearing in mind that Charles himself was a shopworn guy moving up from LHW, this is not the track record of a guy "in great condition to win titles" especially considering him and Charles were constantly playing hot potato with a a vacant belt. It wasn't like they were beating dominant established lineal champions. Walcott lost to Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, Joey Maxim, etc.

Moore never won the HW title and failed every time he attempted it so I don't get why you're mentioning him.

If you mean the current reigning alphabet champions I definitely give Fury a chance to beat all 3. Joshua I could see getting frustrated by Walcott's foot work and Moore's cagey traps and counters but they are far from unwinnable fights for him. Wilder would get outboxed but he has at least a 40% chance of knocking out each of them bare minimum.

I have already stated this current era of heavyweights is mediocre, but the best ones available are formidable h2h by virute of size and strength. This thread isn't about them tho.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that the version of Cockell that fought Marciano would beat the version of Young that Tucker beat. Young hadn't won a fight in almost 3 years and the last 4 fights. Went on to have mixed results for the rest of his career with no significant wins. Cockell was on a win streak and was able to make a decent showing of himself against Marciano although Marciano was never in danger of losing. I wouldn't be surprised if Cockell managed to pull off a decision against a nearly 36 year old burnt out Jimmy Young.

Who is the etc? Walcott was pretty much a heavyweight his entire career from the age of like 20 onwards. Charles filled out and didn't fight much heavier than his best weight of 175 where he is considered the best ever imo. Moore was even more of a legit heavy than Charles technically. He fought there for years and starved himself to get to 175 from what I've read. It seemed the activity level suited them and kept them on point for so long. If all those fights took such a huge toll on people then guys like Harry Greb would have ran out of steam in half their career.

I think you're overexaggerating. You make it sound like a strong gust of wind would knock Ezzard Charles over. He wasn't suffering from ALS in 1946 which was when he got to heavyweight.

 

The rest of my post explained that it wouldn't matter even if Cokkel was good enough to beat the Young whom Tucker beat. Cokkel wasn't going to get past Douglas by Choklab's own admission. Therefore Choklab's argument about Tucker being an "untested" HW despite being ranked #2 in the world and IBF belt holder is strange. He was attempting to take a snipe at Tyson's record which what he usually does in these sorts of debates. The irony being Tucker had been in more fights and was actually older and more experienced than Tyson.

If you want to debate Young vs Cokkel go ahead and make the thread and I have no problem continuing there. This thread is already extremely cluttered.

Nowhere did I mention that Walcott was not a real HW.

Moore was 38 and had a long and gruelling career at LHW before he fought Rocky. And if he was constantly killing himself to make weight defending his title at LHW then jumping back up to HW constantly that was putting even more strain on his aging body. The guy had weird habits like sucking the juices out of steak for the nutrients then discarding the meat. He would drain himself then re hydrate and chow down after a weigh in all the time, even eating sweets.

Uh, Charles fought Rocky in 1954. That's several years after 1946.

Activity can help a fighter but getting into wars/trilogies and having training camps which involve lots of calisthenics and sparring is going to put wear and tear on your body. He had 4 bouts with Walcott and was brutally KO'd in their last fight. He had a long extensive career at 175 before he was ever a HW. That matters when discussing how much he had left in the tank before fighting Rocky. Especially if the topic is Rocky's ability to slip and dodge punches. A shopworn fighter is going to have worse timing/speed/reflexes to be able to throw punches at someone.

Your statement about a gust of wind is a straw man. I was only pointing out that compared to Tyson and Frazier's opposition, Charles' body had been through quite a lot before facing Rocky.

 

I'm purely addressing the claim that cockell is not beating that version of Jimmy Young. He probably would.

You said "Charles, Moore, etc." and I asked who this etc was. I can only assume you meant Walcott because he is commonly associated with Charles and Moore. Furthermore there aren't really any fighters on Marciano's resume besides Charles and Moore that them being a prior light heavyweight could be seen as damaging.

It couldn't have been that much of a strain because he was quite a successful fighter in the years prior to Marciano along with the years post Marciano. All that fighting at heavyweight did was allow him to fight and not have to make a weight limit. Also again, you refer to Moore's body as aging as if it would fly away with a strong gust of wind. Moore was an excellent contender when he fought and against Marciano was more than capable.

Your exact quote was "he was a natural light heavy and suffering from ALS by the time he got HW". Charles got to heavyweight in 1946 and permanently in 1948. Not "he was suffering from ALS by the time he fought Marciano". Neither of which are true. Charles didn't think he started suffering from it until 1955. After the Marciano fight and more than likely because of it.

Calisthenics strengthen the body. Unless they're doing a ridiculous amount of reps past failure but they weren't doing that and if they were you would have to produce evidence of that rather than me provide evidence they weren't. Sparring can be controlled and doesn't put a ton of mileage on the body in and of itself.

Charles wasn't brutally ko'd in his last fight with Walcott. Charles did not have a long extensive career at 175. Where exactly are you getting your info? He started fighting consistently at 175 around the year 1942. He fought twice in 1943 then took a 21 month gap and fought in December of 1944 only 2 times. He didn't fight at all in 1945. Then he fought again from february of 1946 to february of 1948 fighting a mix of heavyweights and light heavyweights. After that he permanently moved up to heavyweight.

No it's not. I don't think you have a firm grasp on strawman. Let's not get into that argument though. As you said, this thread has gone on enough of a side tangent.

What makes you think Charles' body had been through alot? Harry Greb had about 300 fights. Moore, who Charles beat, had over 200. Ray Robinson had about 200 too. Plenty of fighters had just as much if not more fights than Charles had. I could name several more but there's no need because you know who I'm talking about. Charles having just under 100 didn't make him totally shopworn and used up. He was still a good fighter when he fought Marciano.

 

Walcott was not living a “Rocky Balboa lifestyle” all the way until beating Charles. Once he signed with Felix Bochichio Walcott was able to finally get the right fights to develop into a legit Contender long before he even fought Joe Louis. He had already beat Elmer Ray, Lee Q Murray, Hatchet Man Shepherd, Tommy Gomez, Joey Mazim, Jimmy Bivins. Even After the Louis fights Walcott stayed a major contender from then on. He beat Harold Johnson and European champions in sold out soccer stadiums. That’s not a Rocky Balboa lifestyle. There are no spider Rico’s there.

Charles was just 23 when he began fighting heavyweights along side lightheavyweights. Who at that time were all fighting heavyweights too.

no shame in that. Ray, Layne and Maxim were very excellent fighters. In fact these were close fights and Walcott overturned two of these results in rematches. Layne never gave him a rematch. You add these wins to Gomez, Shepherd, Baksi, maxim, Bivins, lee Q Murray, lee Oma and hein ten Hoff and it’s a resume that puts even Sonny Listons pre title “cleaning out” of the division to Shame.

I would favour Walcott, Charles and Moore (on the nights they fought Marciano) over every single defending alphabet champion from 1964-1985. And I would add Herbie Hide, John Ruiz, Bruce Seldon, Micheal Moorer and Tommy Morrison to that list too.

Charles fought far too often at times and his results would suffer during busy periods. But he was just 23 when he started fighting heavyweights. He did not have ALS whe he “moved up”.

where charles must have suffered was the disgraceful way he was matched in the year after the Marciano fights. Fighting 11 times in 12 months against young tough kids in back to back fight. I think he fought Holman twice, Huricane Jackson twice, Toxie hall twice sometimes just weeks apart.

the year Charles fought Marciano he only fought one other time...the great win over Satterfeild.

it was practically the only clean blow landed. But you would have to have seen all four fights in their entirety to have a real opinion on the wear and tear. And you haven’t.

of course Moore’s title was not on the line.world Lightheavyweight champions were ranked within heavyweight top ten because so many LH champs took heavyweight fights. Lesnavich fought heavyweight contenders between defending his title. Moore too. Heavyweights who could still make LH fought for LH titles as well. Like Mauriello and Doug Jones. Lightheavyweight was not an exclusive division.

I think you are confused about this. The lightheavyweight division did not exist as a real division in the way you now understand divisions. Lighter heavyweights had an extra world title to contest for that could be used if won to challenge the heavyweight champion. But they were still all heavyweights. Because most were fighting just as many heavyweights.

 

This is incorrect. Please research this . Then get back to me,

This is incorrect. Please research this point. Then get back to me.

 

This content is protected

 

I think it goes without saying that I'm the biggest Charles fan on here, but there's no way he beats all of those. Especially guys like Thomas and Witherspoon.

 

And it also has to be said that prime for prime, Charles beat the **** outta Moore (twice) and beat Walcott extremely clearly in their second fight. He was a clear level above both, and he doesn't have a prayer of beating these guys one after another. I suppose he could beat a lot of the Tubbs/Biggs/Page crowd in one offs, but I just can't see him going undefeated through every alphabet champ from the 60s to the 80s. It's just unreasonable.

Walcott and Moore, even less so.

Also, wouldn't Holmes count as an alphabet champ at one point?

 

Was actually quite funny.

 

That’s why I said “On the nights they defended their title”.

You think Witherspoon when he defended against Bonecrusher can beat any of those?

or Thomas when he flunked the Berbick fight?

They would have to have been better than that to beat Moore, Charles and Walcott on the nights they fought Rocky.

 

He became a linear champ, so Larry doesn’t count. (I made sure of that)

 

That's what you get for browsing the forum while working lol.