200 LBS or less : Marciano Challenge

I would make Haye 50 / 50 against Marciano under 200, and I simply can't envisage a scenario in which Holyfield could possibly lose to Marciano.

 

In 1978 Muhammad Ali was heavyweight champion of the world and Ken Norton was #1 contender. Does beating those men prove that your chances would rise exponentially against other great fighters?

Walcott legitimately beat Charles once out of the four times he fought them. He was beaten the first two times and arguably gifted in their fourth meeting. In the third and only fight he won cleanly he landed a big left hook and against an opponent that he was well familiar with. A great win but not a fight that head to head arguments should be based exclusively on. An aging Louis beat a prime Walcott in 1948 than Marciano did in 1952.. Jersey was 37-38 years old with 70 fights of mileage behind him and never fought again after the Rocky meetings.. If Wlad loses tomorrow are you really going to credit his conqueror as beating a prime Klitschko?

The obvious differences there are:

1. He was beating men who rose in weight to face him giving him the advantage.

2. He had nowhere near the mileage or history of being stopped as Walcott had.

3. Unlike Walcott Hopkins continued to fight for another decade after those bouts where as Walcott was finished after Rocky.

 

Did Ali go into the Leon Spinks fight coming off his two career best wins like Walcott did going into the Marciano fight? yes knocking out a reigning 29 year old Heavyweight champion in Ezzard Charles who had won his last 24 fights in a row DOES prove his chances rise significantly against other greats. Marciano BEAT the version of Walcott who was coming off of two victories over a top 20 heavyweight of all time.


What is it with you claiming Charles got robbed in all of his losses? Read the articles, read Walcotts book, read Charles book, there are plenty of sources who had Walcott winning the Charles IV fight. Walcott closed the fight strongly.

actually, that knockout over Charles should improve his standing head to head, certainly the 50s version of Walcott whom ESB critics declare was "washed up" despite landing maybe the most perfectly executed punch of all time on a 29 year old heavyweight champion who had not lost in 4 years and never been down for the 10 count.

Why can't we just say Louis and Marciano beat the same version? What is so much different about the 52 Walcott vs the 48 Walcott? Between 1948 and 1952, Walcott recorded 3 victories over hall of famers and put on awe inspiring performances for our own two eyes to see. Where was the drop off?


Lastly, use your eyes, watch Walcott Marciano I, it was clearly one of the top two best performances he has shown on film, you can clearly see from the film he is not washed up and is a capable confident champion at his best setting a terrified pace, letting his hands go the entire fight with jaw breaking left hooks and fast sneaky right hands, while displaying terrific defense against the ropes..

Walcott never fought again after the Marciano fights because he didn't have too.. He had met his goals. He won the heavyweight title and made enough money to live comfortably. Oh so if Walcott retired after Louis defeat in 48, would you be saying Louis knocked out a washed up 34 year old Walcott who never fought again after the Louis fights?

It doesn't work like that. You have to take into consider how Walcott was looking leading INTO the Marciano fight, not what happened afterwards. Walcotts performances over Charles to win the title shows he had not slipped one bit.

Hopkins had different goals than Walcott. He chose to fight another 10 years. Walcott could have kept fighting, but he didn't want too anymore. His goals had been met, he was financially set. And he knew he wasn't winning the title back as long as Marciano was around.

If you read Walcotts book you would see he was seriously considering a comeback in 1956 when Marciano retires, he felt he could beat Archie Moore to win the title.

 

Charles was the reining heavyweight champion and had not been defeated in 4 years 24 fights when he lost to Walcott.

 

MAghoo,

You just don't have a high opinion of Marciano as a fighter in general. In the Moore thread the other day, you referred to Marciano as being rated low historically on a head to head basis. That is the first time I have ever heard that one.

Put in Marciano Moore, watch all the little subtle things Marciano does to break down the mongoose. It's quite impressive what he actually does. Watch it closely you'll see the greatness.

 

No he was coming off of 11 strait title fight wins including some of them against hall of fame bound men, but I still steadfastly claim that he wasn't anywhere near prime.

And there are some who said he didn't.

"Although the Associated Press card gave Charles a slight edge in rounds, it would have been very close if the point scoring system had been used. Actually it was such a slow exhibition of hugging and shoving that there did not seem to be too many violent dissenters. A quick poll of ringside comment gave Charles the decision by a narrow margin."

To be clear I didn't see this fight. but it hardly sounds like either man won clearly or that either were prime. A great win for Walcott but not an a testimony for getting huge props in head to matchups or being prime.

Again it was a great win but how long can one milk it for. Tyson's first round destruction of a former light heavy did him justice too, but its not something that can be stretched forever. If Roy Jones had fought Sanders right after beating Ruiz for a belt, and Corrie had laid him out with a left hook ( a very real possibility ) would you THEN credit Vitali for beating him the way you're giving ample credit to Marciano for beating Walcott?

That's a fair position except you know as well as I do that 4 years is an eternity for a fighter, and unlike the Marciano bout Walcott continued to do good work after Louis.

It was a great fight and I've seen it which is why I rate it as one of the best heavyweight title fights ever. But I can also show you fights between guys you've probably never heard of that were pretty amazing. A great fight doesn't necessarily indicate a man being prime. In this case I think it was a stylistic edge for Walcott and the frightening possibility that maybe Marciano was more vulnerable than you think he was.

I don't know what his reasons were for retiring. You claim to have read his book and maybe he or the author explains it. But he looked pretty finished after Marciano laid him out in their rematch. He had 70 fights of hard mileage, lots of tough outings, had been stopped some 6 or 7 times and was nearing the 40 year old mark. Not many champions have continued with all that said...

Its my opinion that NEITHER of those guys were prime when they fought. They split a series of four fights with each of them winning two and their final match being controversial.

I seriously doubt that even Walcott had all the desire in the world to continue his career he could not have stayed productive as long B-Hop. Bernard at age 50 still has yet to see his first stoppage loss despite facing several p4p greats.

But he didn't.

 

You make a lot of good points maghoo I'll reply later,

 

I respect the man for his legacy and have said so before many times. But there's a difference between paying a man his dues for what he did in his own time and having the confidence in him to actually BEAT successors who one feels have obvious advantages over him.. And I know you feel the same way as revealed by your comments about such fighters as Holmes, Dempsey, etc..

No it isn't. You've read it many times before here. And there are many who would pick most of their top 10 to beat him. Start a poll asking people how he'd fair against Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, Foreman, Klitscko, Liston and Bowe. Some might back him, but there would be plenty who'd pick most or even all those guys to win.

I don't doubt his greatness or Archie's. I just don't see Archie as being a prime heavyweight at the time Marciano fought him.

 

Thank you and likewise. I may not get around to replying until monday but I look forward to your responses. :good

 

Haye would have very little chance due to his terrible workrate and stamina.

 

Foxy you are an imbecile.

 

Wrong. They didn't fight for the " world title " until 11 months later. Ezzard had had 10 NBA title fights going into the Walcott fight in July 51. Plus not all of those 24 fights were at Heavyweight.

 

One quick thing

I rate Holmes number 4 on my all time list, I think I give him his adequate due. Head to head I pick him over most.

 

Ezzard Charles defeated Joe Louis in 1950 to become undisputed world heavyweight champion. When he fought Walcott in 1951, it was for the WORLD title, Charles was the man. The linear title holder.

You're wrong

 

It doesn't offend me in the least, but I don't think it is very likely.

The only way anybody stops Dempsey late, is if they can avoid getting hit by most of his punches, one way or another.

As a finisher, Dempsey has few peers in boxing history.