Can the Marciano of 1955 beat these opponents: 1. George Godfrey 2. Charlie Mitchell 3. Paddy Slavin 4. Peter Jackson 5. John L. Marciano has a bad back by this period, could he have beaten these men with a 3 month break period between each fight?
The 1955 Marciano has a pretty good chance of going 5-0, but the conditions of the fight figure in. Are any of the fights London? I think Marciano could have been a terrific London-rules fighter. On the other hand, if he has only a few months to meet an experienced Londoner like Sullivan or Mitchell, that's a factor. Are the fights 15 round, or finish fights? Are they 50's or 1880's acceptable? In many 1880's locales and moments, your butts going to jail if you KO your opponent. Peter Jackson might surprise us. Sullivan -- a fast out the gate, quick handed power puncher is going to have a chance, due to being a fast out the gate, quick handed power puncher. Marciano vs. 'a 1950's Jackson' and 'a 1950's Sullivan', or Jackson and Sullivan vs. 'an 1880's Marciano' .... would be yet another (and different than the posted) question. The topics question is the perfectly legitimate question of 1955 Marciano vs. '1880's boxers (presumably) qua (as) 1880's boxers'.
Well, mostly as in my comment. Sullivan has a 'look in' as a fast handed, fast-out-the-gate power puncher -- that's certainly a (not necessarily 'the') 'kind' of fighter one might want to throw at Marciano, if one's life depended on it. Peter Jackson, well, if it's a finish fight, and the idea of a KO ending is locally countenanced, I think that, though Jackson had very good stamina in terms of not fatiguing from the act of boxing, I have a skepticism that he could take Marciano's blows over a terminal route. If it's limited rounds (say 6) Queensbury, or if the locality tolerated only 'exhibitions' of skill, he'd be a chancy proposition for even a 1955-developed. Charlie Mitchell's chances of making a showing go up considerably if the fight is London Rules. Yet I'd still strongly favor Marciano, who I think would come in a lot better prepared than Sullivan (v. Mitchell) 1988. An interesting question is if, in a London contest, Marciano's low stance might make him succeptable to chancery. Also, if '55 Marciano was having any back issues, how might he handle any tosses/throw downs (perhaps a mutual fall with an (of course) innocent 'ooops' knee in the back). On the other hand, Marciano was a damned stronged cuss, so with a bit of prep it's certainly possible that rappling opponents might have played into his hands. In fact, I think that latter is more likely. An '1880's' Marciano would be more specifically adapted to that time, but without any benefit of seventy years of boxing developments; also possibly smaller. I think a prime Sullivan would have been at least 50-50 vs. a priming '1880's' Marciano, and Jackson's chances would also improve some (as against the actual 1950's Marciano). But who knows? I read once of a company of modern artillerists, on a Napoleonic battlefield with period artillery, being unable to replicate the mobilities that Napoleon's artillerists had demonstrated. Doesn't mean they couldn't become artillerists capable of such performances, and perhaps add a bit of 175+ years learning. The unfamiliaraty was against them; also, when it's life and death, that's also a factor, for sure! (Maybe a factor that increases, maybe a factor that decreases, performance. [When tenor Enrico Caruso was once asked why his voice so greatly affected people, he answered, "They hear the fear.").
