How skilled was Charles, Walcott, Moore when Rocky beat them

Absolutely!
So many heavyweights now having greater success even at advanced ages. 37 seems not at all old in heavyweights now but look at such as most of the 8o s generation, they were mostly all done by early to mid 30 s, washed up. And the Lower weight to. Hopkins, Toney, Manny pac, FMJ etc . Only a few from the old days stood out at a advanced age, Jersey Joe and Archie are the two that spring to mind.

 

No they weren't. Moore said his legs were gone for the Marciano fight and once Rocky got him in a position where he could hit him it was over.The next mornings papers after the 2nd Jeffries vFitz fights said the difference was the 12 years image. Foreman couldn't take more punishment he just paced himself better and therefore did not run out of gas. No fighter is prime at 38! If he was in his prime why did he retire? Utter nonsense!

 

Was Walcott better in 47 or 53?
Was Moore better in 51 or 55?

 

Prime Pacquaio v Horn who wins?End of debate!

 

Was Marciano better in 51 or 55?

 

Irrelevant because he didn't fight either Walcott or Moore in 51.

 

How is it irrelevant? You’re asking if those fighters were better five years prior same can be said of marciano whose last fight was Moore. Marciano was a lot springier in 51 and was prime. Swarmers are generally better when younger and have shorter careers. Only fought Walcott a year later.

 

Walcott was 38 ,Moore according to him 38 ,according to his Mother 41.Marciano was still in his prime when he retired in 55!
Moore was better at175lbs than as a heavyweight . Walcott was better against Louis than years later. Here are two of Marciano's 51 fights.
[url]1951-04-30[/url] 185¾ [url]Willis Applegate[/url] 196 11 14 2
Rhode Island Auditorium, Providence
W
UD 10/10
referee: [url]Dolly Searle[/url]
This was a bruising, crowd-pleasing battle. Marciano won handily enough but failed to even knock down his opponent, who had fought only twice in the previous two years. Applegate's best round was the third, which the referee also took from Marciano because of a low punch. Red landed plenty of good punches, typically in the early parts of rounds, but Marciano almost always came back later to take the play away. Marciano's best round was the sixth. The attendance was 4167 and the gross gate was $7,6l6.
[url]1951-03-26[/url] 186¾ [url]Art Henri[/url] 184½ 13 15 1
Rhode Island Auditorium, Providence
W
TKO 9/10
time: 2:51 | referee: [url]Dolly Searle[/url]
Henri frequently outfought Marciano with left hooks in the first three rounds, and landed four nifty uppercuts at close range in round three. Marciano hurt him with a two-handed attack in the fourth round and Art did not land much after that, although defending himself cleverly. The fight became one-sided and uninteresting. Marciano dropped Henri for two nine-counts in the ninth and the referee stopped it. Marciano was slow, sluggish, and cumbersome, and made one of his poorest showings. Attendance was 4386 and the gross gate was $8285. You think he was better here than against Walcott and Charles?

 

I always said that as well.

Moore was on an incredible win streak, he was the LHW Champion, vanquished rival Harold Johnson, had just defeated the lineal MW Champion and rated LHW in Olson, and then defeated the #1 HW contender in Valdes.

Robinson had been on a 3 year hiatus after the defeat to Maxim.
Saddler was on a good run but started slipping in 55.

 

Nice of you to leave out the Rex Layne and Joe Louis wins lol a Rex Layne that beat walcott earlier that year (or was it the year before?)

 

I don't think he was very impressive against Louis do you? He looked much better against Walcott. I don't think much of Layne.
Here's the 51 Simmons fight in which Marciano was in danger of being stopped.

In his book [url]Rocky Marciano: The Rock of His Times[/url], Russell Sullivan wrote: "Marciano was in trouble early before winning—and not before drawing some boos from the Providence crowd for hurling a few low blows."
If you think Marciano was better in 51 than 55 put it to the forum See what they think?

 

Walcott and Moore were clearly both past prime, but because of their cleverness and experience they were still both extremely dangerous fighters despite their age and both Walcott and Moore admittedly both underestimated Marciano, who’s style is a lot more effective than it looks. Also Walcott and Moore were still beating plenty of the young prime contenders.

Charles was a little long in the tooth when he fought Marciano, but like Walcott and Moore was extremely experienced and Charles had a wicked jab. Marciano got very lucky in the rematch that he had such an experienced corner that managed to deal with that cut. Plenty of other fighters would’ve quit with such a cut.

 

Ahhhh never said he was “better” said he was younger and springier. As were probably walcott and Moore. I believe he was at his best late 51-54. He was his most skilled in the Moore fight which was later. He learned the game as he went as he started late. But physically speaking 51 marciano was faster and stronger then 55 Marciano. That I don’t think is debatable. As far as Simmons goes who knows. Hard to judge fights you didn’t see for yourself and he developed leaps and bounds that year from beginning to end.

 

They didnt manage to deal with the cut , Freddie Brown couldnt stop the bleeding they told Marciano he had to ko Charles or the referee might stop it and he rose to the challenge .

 

He wasn't at his best in the Moore fight and did not himself think he was.