0-3 potentially. Definitely loses to Walcott of the 1st fight, Moore of 1955 stops him late, I could see Bruno escaping a win over 1954 Charles but Charles of the first Marciano fight put up an incredible workrate bruno might not be able to match. Safe bet is Bruno goes 1-2
The problem with Marciano's resume is after beating the clear cut 4 best heavyweights of the era (Walcott, Louis, Charles Moore) his resume dropped off dramatically. Layne was a good win, but Cokkell Lastarza Matthews were well managed over protected white fighters who I wouldn't even rank in the top 15 of the era. So after Marciano beats the 4 best of the era, he didn't beat any of the remaining 5-15 best with the exception of Layne(who would barely make it in the top 15). There were some good young powerful big athletic heavyweights out there hungry to challenge marciano like Bob Baker Nino Valdes Clarence Henry Earl Walls Hurricane Jackson. Marciano just didn't fight any of them. Some of those men presented interesting stylistic challenges for him. With that said, he knocks out all of those men. Marciano DID beat the best of his era unquestionably but it would have been interesting to see him take on one of the TOP young big fighters out there who could really bang. People who say Marciano's era lacked good young fighters don't know what there talking about. They were out there, they just didn't get shots at Marciano. Archie Moore cleaned up most of them which is why the mongoose is so impressive. Had Marciano had about 3-4 more title defenses with some of the above mentioned names while also defeating his heir patterson in 56, he would have has good of a title reign as anyone in history. Instead, he still has a great title reign, but its behind the likes of ali, louis, holmes, Lewis and Wlad
It's a little overboard but at least shows some balance. The fact that his best wins were over guys who did nothing more in the division if not in the sport is a bad coincidence that doesn't speak well for his strength of schedule.
Which is why he is missing a Floyd Patterson from his resume. A win over a good young fighter who would go on to win the title after his retirement would have looked really good on his resume and moved him up a few notches on most peoples lists. It didn't happen. Big Deal, he is still one of the best ever. Then again, Rocky had a style where after you fought him young or old, you were never the same again. There is strong evidence to support this. Rocky was an animal, a nut job. Read Ezzard Charles great description on Rocky, guy was a sociopath when it came to training. The rings ultimate animal. You had to go through hell to beat Rocky, how many men care to do that?
I really can't argue with this really. Perhaps all that can be used in Rockys defence is applying the actual timeline of the day, how the top contenders were decided and the way that the championship schedule, rematch clauses, tax, outdoor summer season championship promotions and all worked in chronological order of context.
Great Matchups. But I would have to agree with most others, safe bet 1-2. His best chance is against Charles ( Styles) or Moore ( Power) Walcott would beat him.
