How good do 1952 Walcott, 1955 Moore, 1954 Charles look on film?

I missed the Elmer Ray win but I'm not sure Ray was current at that time?

Moore and Maxim were by those days heavyweights who could make LH. Until 1970 the LH title was merely a springboard within the HW division for the Heavyweight crown proper. I can't think of the first exclusive Lightheavyweight but I imagine they did not come along until much much later. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that in Archie Moore's day a "natural heavyweight" was anybody who couldn't make middleweight.

The question of this thread was not how big but how good were Moore, Charles and Walcott when fighting Marciano. Drawing attention to how big they were is an amusing detour from the actual subject. They were either good or bad not big or small. You are either good enough rather than big enough. Take Billy Conn. He was good enough for Joe Louis.

 

You made a direct comparison to Muhammad Ali.

"Charles looked great on film in 1954 and was exactly where Muhammad Ali was in 1974, an ex champion with one special fight still left in him. He had two great wins behind him just like Ali had going into Zaire with a good camp to prepare. Charles v Marciano "


I pointed out that prime Ali was a natural heavyweight and both Charles and Moore were natural light heavies.
You made the comparison, I showed it is non applicable.

ps I added more good heavies that those lhvy's you mentioned met.

 

Jane Russell looked great on film in 1952.

 

Like Rocky ,she was" two handed", or was that" two handfuls?"

 

If you would rather think that be my guest ,it is patently untrue but ,"whatever gets you through the night".

 

Strangely enough, she's been described as having a strong jaw too.
... and obviously she was a knock out.

 

Moore looks good, Walcott too, I gotta say that Charles doesn't look as good as the other two though.

 

Yes I noticed that. Good shout. :good

 

I had some happy time watching her in films like" The Outlaw".
Turns out contrary to first impressions, she was devoutly religious.

 

Yeah, a Christian conservative.
Now she's gone, and they're left with Sarah Palin.

 

I would agree with this. Charles was a bit better pre 1954.

 

I thought Charles looked better than Moore. Once Rocky hurt Moore it was all one way where as in their first epic Charles kept raging back. Moore never got a foothold after his first bad round. The difference wasn't so much that Rocky had turned the tide like he did with Archie but that he had more dominant rounds overall against Charles. Ezzard was younger too. I think it shows in that Charles beat Moore so many times. Having said that, it was not age that beat Archie nor Charles it was Rocky Marciano. Both were the deserved outstanding contender with win streaks at elite level. They were not hand picked. they were the best heavyweights out there.

 

You just keep convincing yourself of that. Just don't be surprised if only a very few people agree with you.

You are seriously claiming that the BEST opponent they could come up with for Marciano was a 39 year old guy that had fought at Light Heavy 3 months earlier.

No wonder people say that was a sh it era.