Best title reign: Jeffries' or Marciano's?

I'd say.. Marciano

 

Also Marciano didnt hide behide a color bar.

 

Jeffries beat the #1 ( Fitz ), #2, ( Sharkey ) and #3 ( Corbett ) challengers out there in a years time. He also beat the styles of the puncher, the swarmer, and the boxer.

When matched vs lesser guys, Jeffries did not carry them. He finished them quickly.

 

Marciano pretty emphatically, greater fighters that were generally younger and bigger in a tougher era

 

Victories over Walcott twice, Charles twice, as well as LaStarza and Moore, I'd have to give the slight nod to Marciano.

 

Basically, you are stacking up

Walcott v. Fitzsimmons

Charles v. Corbett

LaStarza v. Ruhlin

Moore v. ? perhaps Sharkey

Cockell v. Finnegan or Munroe

 

Charles, LaStarza and Cockell were not better than there peers when they fought rocky.
Charles had lost two on the trot and five since falling from grace in 1950. LaStarza got his shot because the majority of boxing experts thought he was robbed of a decision over Rocky in 1950. Both LaStarza and Cockell lost to major contenders almost straight after losing Rocky (within eighteen months). Charles remained a tough test but he was beaten as regularly after Rocky as he was between 1950-1953. In fact he lost even more. Walcott won the title at the fifth attempt but was always careless and a bit chinny. He lost 7 out of his last 14, okay he was robbed against lewis and got himself koed in the return showboating. That was more a case of joe lewis being noticeably passed it in 1947 and 1948. So you left with Archie Moore if you want a fighter who was still a fighting great when he met Rocky. Walcott I am 50/50 on because he was 38/39 and slower than when he fought joe lewis. However he got less careless as his speed and skills declined a bit, shades of bernard hopkins using what he has better as he aged.
Walcott I will give as always dangerous but prone to slip ups. He is in my trouble bracket for greats but not one himself because he would lose to guys he was way better than because of his careless streak and doggy chin at the highest level.

To many unknowns with Rocky which those with rose tinted glasses turn into greatness. Decent heavyweight champion, carefully managed except for Walcott, given to much trouble by none elite heavyweights and old light heavies. Fantastic to watch because of his heart and the punishment he could take while relentlessly pursuing his opentents. We need Rocky to fight more guys out of his comfort zone like Walcott or a young quick guy like paterson or a big guy with a jab nino valdes. Here is good point for you go through Rockys record and see how many fighters had not lost half of their last six fights. The numbers are an eye openner.

So Jefferies for me because the unknowns is how they make rocky great.

 

Rocky for me. Mostly because I think of Charles and Walcott as hws higher than of any of Jeffries´ opponents. Jeffries still had a very impressive reign, especially for his numbers of fights.

 

Jeffries first year as champ was terrific,wins over Fitz,Corbett and Sharkey and one gimme over Finnegan.I think Marciano catches him up after this , and slightly surpasses him ,but only slightly .I give Rocky a small edge here.

 

Jeffries was far more respected in his own day .. overall they were about even.

 

This is true,Marciano was spoken of as a poorer version of Dempsey, in the 50's but what does it mean ,really?
In the 60's and 70's Walcott and Charles were seen as at best average Champions now, many on this site call them ATG's.
Time changes perspective, maybe some of us ,myself included, underate Jeffries today,and, overate Marciano?
Perhaps the pendulum will swing back the other way again?
Maybe a case can be made for ,either Rocky or Jeff being the more dominant Champ?