give each of Rocky Marciano's title opponents a letter grade

On Holmes versus Walcott, Charles, and Moore.

Holmes hadn't won a fight since May of 1985 and had been off for almost two years since the losing for the second time to Spinks. All of Marciano's three opponents were coming off major recent wins.

This might be subject to debate about what it means for rating, but it is a significant difference.

 

They don't get "A's"

Age, wear and tear...and their history mark them down.

Nobody is going to get better at that age and that much wear and tear.



Floyd Patterson beat Archie Moore quicker and easier than Marciano just a year later after Moore went on a winning streak. So was Moore an "A" in the HW division?
I think not.

Charles had a two fight winning streak. Big deal. He still was better years before.

Same with Walcott. two fight winning streak.

All were still past their prime.

And Moore was a Great LH, not a great HW.
And Charles as well has been talked about as a "Great" LH more so than a HW despite what happened to him in his career.

Walcott still lost to a Past Prime Joe Louis...among others.

They were also beating the crap out of each other prior to facing Marciano. you don't think that matters?


Holmes: People actually thought he won the second fight. But yes, off two years when he fought Tyson. However, sometimes its not a bad thing. Better than being in rough fights. but activity can be a good thing when done right.
And still, Holmes was a Great Boxer, HOF Boxer, and a true 200+ pound boxer...who got KTFO by Tyson. Only man to do it.
Still not an "A"




______

 

I would rate Rex Layne higher than Roland LaStarza or Don Cockell, despite him being tailor made for Marciano.

 

I just don't agree with you.

Walcott's two fight winning streak was over the best heavyweight in the world.

Moore lost to Patterson. Yeah, and Holmes lost to Spinks. Patterson after all was champion for five years.

Charles was past his best. Yes. How much is open to debate.

Age doesn't prove you can't fight. Even in Holmes' case, how much he had gone back is open to debate. Spinks might have been quite a bit better than his earlier opposition. Spinks lost only to Tyson and slaughtered Cooney. And it is possible even a younger Holmes might have been caught by Tyson. He was after all, knocked down and pretty badly hurt by Shavers and Snipes. Tyson was a better finisher.

I would certainly rate Holmes an A level opponent for Michael Spinks regardless of his later being beaten more quickly by Tyson. My judgement is that Holmes was also an A level opponent for Tyson.

*I have never done this sort of A-F ratings before, so don't equate me with other posters. If a man is the top guy out there, I consider him an A level opponent.

 

So that makes them "A's"

How ?

I'm not saying they weren't "A's" at their best/prime...but at that point you are saying they are "A's"

Compared to who?

Are we just giving them a grade compared to the others in that era?

because if so, then today's era I would have to say there are a lot more "A's" than I thought.

Here...let's think of it another way:

This content is protected

 

Okay--my A ratings would go to those who are either the best fighter walking the Earth or arguably the best fighter walking the Earth other than the champion.

Heavens, I don't consider it important, even if it could be judged, if this fighter is better than someone of many years earlier or later. That is more of this unrealistic fantasy nonsense.

As for the number of defeats, I don't think you can compare vastly different eras that way. ALL the contenders of recent years have fewer defeats that those of past eras. Why? Top men aren't matched with each other the way they used to be. Also, old timers often learned on the job as pros rather than in the amateurs and so all their losses count on pro records. Holmes was stopped as an amateur twice by Nick Wells but that is not on his pro record.

If you printed the won-lost records of, let's say, the 1930 to 1960 era, the great fighters like Louis and Marciano would stand out. If you print the won-lost records of the last thirty years or so, you won't be able to tell Lewis or Holmes or Wlad from guys like Nielson or Gomez. As a matter of fact, one of the guys with the most losses, Holyfield, would be one of the best fighters.

*Why does Walcott get an A from me--He was the champion of the world and coming off his two biggest wins. His next best win, over Johnson, was only two years earlier. There is no hard evidence he wasn't at his best.

**Moore--was on the best win streak of his career, with ko's of Johnson and Baker and Olson, and a win over Valdes within the last year and a half. He was rated the top heavyweight contender. There is no hard evidence he wasn't at his best.

***Charles--This is your best case, but he was still the #1 contender and coming off two impressive ko victories. The loss to Johnson was close and disputed in Johnson's home town. He had lost to Valdes in a big upset but it is telling that Valdes passed on an elimination fight with Charles and so let the winner of the Charles-Satterfield bout get the shot at Marciano. Like Holmes, it is open to some debate how far back Charles had gone. The Valdes fight seems to be one of those taking an opponent much too lightly and coming in unprepared upsets. The Walcott, Layne, and Johnson fights were close and controversial. Charles could well have been judged the winner in all of them.

 

I understand a lot learned on the job. However, you can count defeats if it pertains to wear and tear. Age, ring wars, being knocked down and knocked out...adds up. Pro level fights are arguably much harder on your body than amateur fights. And if you are getting beat up when you are not as skilled...that might be even worse because you are taken full force damage...so instead of rolling with the punches, blocking punches...you are a walking punching-bag compared.

As far as ratings:
If I can take a fighter and point to a particular time where he looked better, that's how I'm going to grade it.
That's why I mentioned Charles from '48-50 vs. his '54 self.
I'm more likely to take Charles from '48-50 as an "A" and the other, "B."
And I would favor the 1948-50 version to defeat the one that fought in 1954.

But if we are grading solely on that era....it might be different. But then like I said...I would have to ask SuzieQ49 about how he was grading it with his Tyson thread.

 

"you can count defeats if it pertains to wear and tear"

I don't that getting ko'd as an amateur is any less wear and tear than getting ko'd as a pro, if you were indeed ko'd rather than the fight stopped by the ref's intervention.

Anyway, doesn't wear and tear have to be proven to have actually affected the guy. Walcott was winning big fights. So was Moore, and Moore would continue to win fights for years although off his record, he had much more wear and tear on him than any of the men we are talking about.

*I don't know how SuzidQ49 grades.

I do understand your argument that Charles of 1949 might have been better than the Charles of 1954. On the other hand, Charles might have lost a close decision to someone like Johnson in 1949 also. I do think Charles had gone back some, but not a great deal off watching the films of his fights with Valentino and Johnson.

**I would consider the bottom line on Marciano to be this--from the time he turned pro until his last fight in 1955, the best out there were Louis, Charles, Walcott, and Moore. He ko'd them all. He did all he could be asked to do.

 

Walcott deserves to be in the Hall of Pretty Good, not the Hall of Fame. Charles deserves so but more for his work at light heavy. Same with Moore. None of their collective works at heavyweight does much for me.

What is a Roland Lastarza and what did it ever beat that mattered?

Don Cockell would have stayed at light heavy, and been serviceable, had a) it not been a horrible era for the heavy division and b) he not had a glandular condition that made him into a butterball.

 

Is the question for their time period or over all ? For the time period:

Walcott B+ / A --
Walcott C
LaStarza B-
Charles B+
Charles B
Cockell C
Moore B+/ A--

Against bigger and later guys considerably lower ...

Funny, just to get some perspective, I'm reading the collected writings of Jimmy Cannon and he writes extensively about Walcott, Charles, Marciano and Moore from the stand point of covering them from the day and he basically says Charles was never considered anything near great as a heavyweight (as a middle and light heavy, yes, but heavyweight no way) , Walcott was an erratic bore more known for the fights he lost than won, Marciano a noble warrior but not in Louis' class and Moore as a pudgy, gamey blown up light heavyweight. These were his own words, not mine.

 

This about what I would do, thought I would give Moore a definite B+(Not a very great heavyweight, great fighter) and Walcott I a definite A-(He was on his best form, imo).

I think C is a good grade for Cockell. Not an inept fighter, but definitely the weakling in that pool of guys.

 

That is Jimmy Cannon's opinion. By the way, A J Liebling has a much higher opinion of Moore back in 1955.

At the end of the century, Louis was voted #2 and Walcott #9 among heavyweights of the century by the AP.

Charles and Moore were rated one and two at lightheavy by Ring Magazine.

Doesn't really impress me as all that mediocre, but heavyweights were smaller back then, and if size is your criteria, you can judge them differently.

But they were big enough to be the best walking the Earth in their own eras and I don't consider anything else all that important.

 

I do not think the Walcott who fought Marciano was as good as the man who fought Louis three years earlier, no way ... That Walcott was an A.
To Rocky's credit he fought them all and the more I think it through he fought much better competition than Dempsey did in my book ... at least as Champion ... the prime Sharkey and Tunney were better than the guys Rocky fought when he fought them ..

 

Oh, I'd agree. But I think the guy was razor sharp and had just produced his best results of his entire career.

If his best is an A, thats worthy of an A-.