The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Would Mike Tyson be a threat today?
Yes?
No?

 

Liston won because he hit like a truck,was a decent boxer and had a great chin.
I have always stated a man 200+ pounds is big enough is he is good enough.That does no apply to a man185lbs 5 '10in, with a 68in reach ,poor defence ,slow feet, and cut prone skin!

 

He was fast tracked because his manager was the matchmaker for the IBC !The IBC was nicknamed "The Octopus" because they ran boxing in the 50's!

 

The Mob cares about MONEY and a white heavyweight champion was always more financially viable than a black one!
Ad Wolf Los Angeles Times ," Marciano's challenge for the title is a crusade to become the first white champion since Jimmy Braddock."
Furman Bisher,The Atlanta Constitution,"Marciano is the white hope for sure".
Wilton Garrison,The Charlotte Observer," Rocky is young and definitely the new white hope,an animal they have been hunting since Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney quit."

 

Why wasn’t Layne put into a title fight over Walcott? Boxing has always been run by a handful of people. Rocky was popular because he knocked everyone out and he was very conscious of that fact. Just winning wasn’t good enough for him he wanted to knock them out. Guys like that become draws quickly. Rocky earned his way to the top. To say otherwise is to be mistaken. One second you’re complaining how many fights he had to have before facing quality opposition next thing you’re saying he was ushered into top billing fights. The argument just isn’t true. He became known publicly after the Vingo fight which earned him bigger fights. That’s when he started to fight bigger names in LaStarza, Layne, Savold, Louis, Matthews en route to the title

 

I didn't say he didn't earn his way to the top, I said he was fast tracked into top of the bill fights because of his connections and that not just my opinion , it's the opinion of Russell Sullivan ,author of "The Rock Of His Times". The quality of Marciano's competition did not go up quickly ,that's a totally different thing,After Lastarza, who hadn't really beaten anybody Marciano fought:
Epperson 22-20-5
Buonvino 22-11-7
Schkor 32-18-7
Lowry 70-57-10
Wilson 41-11-3
Simmons 8-8-1
Mitchell 7-13-3
Henri 13-11-1
Applegate11-14-2
It was over a year after beating Lastarza that he took on Layne.7 months after that he fought Louis,and another 6 months before he fought Savold.I think you will find Marciano was the headliner for all but one of those bills. The plan was for Layne to beat Marciano and take on Charles for the title Walcott wasn't ranked in the top 3 when Layne beat him.
"Marciano's race helped him not just with the press,but with the promoters as well.His status as The Great White Hope greatly facilitated a rapid rise to the top of the heavyweight ranks.Until then ,only a handful of men had scaled the heavyweight heights faster than Marciano did in the late 40's and early 50's.It took him 42 fights and a little more than 4 years of professional fighting to get a title shot.His rise was meteoric.
This was not accidental.
After his knockout of Layne,the IBC clearly and openly started to push Marciano into the title picture.
In coverage of his television fights the press would regularly point out that the IBC wanted Marciano to win,the IBC rooted for Marciano in part because of the color of his skin. despite Louis; success and eventual popularity,the promotional guidelines of the day ,still called for white fighters in big fights.
White boxers of all classes received better television exposure and were routinely pushed along faster than their black counterparts,even if the happened to possess,less talent,ability,and flair.The underlying assumption was of course,that most white fans preferred white boxers to black boxers.
After Louis abdicated the IBC was daring enough to match two black men for the vacated title,Walcott and Charles.All things being equal however,white promoter still yearned for a Great White Hope.During Charles reign the IBC continually matched the black champion against mediocre white challengers,such as Lee Oma and Freddie Beshore.
In other weight classes as well the IBC banked on the white/black formula, Robinson for example fought one white man after another.Given these established rules of matchmaking, it was natural that the IBC try and steer Marciano,a white man toward the heavyweight title.
As Truman Gibson of the IBC acknowledges,"Marciano's race was definitely an advantage.Our television sponsors all felt ,rightly or wronglythata mixed fight benefited the ratings.Marciano ,in a sense was the Great White Hope and billed as such" Russell Sullivan "The Rock Of Hs Times," pages 86,and 87.

 

His manager was well connected. This true. I don’t see when comparing his record to others how it differs? Most greats take 3-5 years to get there in their development. Most greats are connected to the match makers of the time. They get them the big bucks and fights. I’m sure there was some avoiding some guys and not others on the way up as any good manager does. Not sure where you think Rocky falls short of his contemporaries? Once champ he fought the best with the exception of Don. Even LaStarza although protected was a very good fighter. Small in today’s terms and I don’t think he’s a HW today but he was a good fighter. Not sure how many really good fighters you wanted Rocky to fight in a year. He kept busy and developed with lesser names and once or twice a year met a solid contender. That’s normal of the time and after. I think Layne is one of the most underrated guys on this forum and he belongs in the Quarry category of quality fighters and contenders. Just my opinion. Depending on how you rate the white fighters he fought probably determines much of what you think of his career. Prime Layne, LaStarza, Matthews were good fighters imo. Layne being excellent the others just good boxers and worthy of their rank. We won’t find agreement as I know what you think of those men but they were highly regarded at the time.

also he was the headliner because he was popular. He was knocking out everyone he met. That’s what made Louis, Tyson, Foreman and Liston popular of course he was headlining

 

A contender probably Im doubtful he could make it to the top. He would probably stay at cruiserweight though.

Tyson is far more proven against 220 plus quality opponents than Liston though who never fought any world class

 

Since the mid 90s nobody as small as Liston has been top dog at heavyweight. Usyk is the only one close but he's still taller than Liston and more skilled. So the evidence points elsewhere

 

I just posted the effect Rocky being white had on his career from contemporary quotes of the day ,if you choose to ignore them, that's up to you.

 

Not according to the statistics. It took Marciano 5 and a half years, or 5.5 years, from debut to champion. I showed that the average amount of years from debut to champion based on the champions that preceded Marciano was 6.411 even with extreme outliers like Braddock, Sharkey, Tunney, Johnson and Fitzsimmons skewing the numbers. Adjusted for the outliers we got an average of 4.636 years. For some of those champions that subsequently succeeded Marciano it was on average 5.7 years, and adjusted for a couple of outliers, it dropped to 4.93 years on average.

It is hardly controversial to take a year longer or shorter on average from debut to becoming a champion.

I took some time writing that post, dismissing it just because it does not fit your narrative/argument is not only rude, but highlights how weak your argument is.

You also used Charles, Moore and Walcott as counter-examples because it took them many years to become champion which completely ignored important context:

Both Moore and Charles started as middleweights, stayed in the middleweight division for years, Moore 10 years and Charles 2,3 years, eventually both moved up and competed in the light-heavyweight divison for years. And yes they both were denied title-shots, but Moore would never become light-heavyweight champion as long as Charles was there, and Charles was initially not interested in moving up to the heavyweight division where Joe Louis reigned. And there were other extraneous reasons for their delay, like World War II, which delayed Charles' career exactly 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days. That is for Charles about 4 or 5 years not competing at light-heavyweight or heavyweight.

When he started in earnest his run in the heavyweight division, it took him roughly 3 and a half years after returning from military service in early 1946 to defeating Walcott by decision for the NBA world heavyweight title on June 22, 1949, and 4 years and 9 months to defeating Joe Louis on September 27, 1950.

But to use Moore and Charles timeline from debut to champion, when they first competed and were denied title-shots in a different weight class, is a strawman argument, or just plain short-sightedness by you, for they both got title-shots in the heavyweight division! (and Moore eventually in the light-heavyweight division!).

This brings us to Jersey Joe Walcott. It took exactly 3 years and 4 months from Walcott's career restart in August 1944 and his first world title-shot against Joe Louis on December 5, 1947 at Madison Square Garden. Walcott received financial backing and management of Felix Bocchicchio, who had mob ties and was under the control of the IBC. Likewise did Ezzard Charles' manager Jake Mintz, who was initially Charles's matchmaker starting in 1946. Archie Moore famously refused to play ball with the mob and his career suffered from it.

So both Charles and Walcott, who were contractually controlled by the IBC and had managers with mob ties, ended up with shorter timelines to their heavyweight title-shots than Marciano did, and who according to you were fast-tracked due to his skin color and his manager's ties to the IBC and the mob.

Let's not forget that Marciano never lost! He did not have any setbacks like his competitors. When you take that into account the 5.5 year from debut to champion could be considered slow! How long do you believe Marciano should have taken from debut to champion, and what methodology are you using to determine it? So far all I am seeing from you is soft data (subjective, qualitative information based on opinions, feelings, attitudes, and sentiment) being contradicted by hard data (objective, quantifiable and verifiable information based on measurable facts).

 

Not only according to me,but also according to his biographer. Whom you obviously dismiss.

 

charles, moore and walcott.

if rocky was 230 then we could put an asterix on those. but he wasn't.

 

It's my opinion nothing more,nothing less.