How would Liston have done against Marciano's title opposition ?

Liston would do very good against Rocky's opponents!

He should be able to beat guys like Lastarza and Layne....and while I would favor joe Louis in a prime match-up Liston should be able to beat this version. That would leave Moore, Charles and Walcott with the best shots and I believe Liston would be to much for Moore...I find Charles a very neat match that could go either way, but again would favor Liston....Walcott on the other hand I would pick to beat Liston.

This is how I would see it putting a 58-63 Liston in 51-55 Marciano era.

 

I don't disagree that Liston would likely win....But a 40 yo/ Moore is not the equivalant in my book of the 35 y/o that fought Rocky, even as well as he aged.

 

People like saying this but I don’t think people should accept this without looking at the facts. Film proves that Charles Walcott and Moore did not fight like old men against Marciano. This is a fact. These are great competitive fights. The films show that Rocky beat great fighters who were trying to win.
　

Sure the career timing favoured Marciano slightly but had he avoided Moore and charles history would be calling both uncrowned champions. Both could beat rated fighters. Moore was a giant killer. He was wiping out marcianos top ten. Baker and Valdes were #1 and #2 at heavyweight. Charles was but 2 years older than Marciano. Sure he had a lot more fights but Ezzard was still an ATG when he met rocky. Since the war only Walcott (a guy some say he beat 3 tmes)had beaten him clearly. Film shows Charles put up a champions performance against Marciano in the first fight. He was not a worn fighter at all.
　

This is splitting hairs. From 49-53 Charles was as effective. He was more box puncher and sitting down on his shots if anything. Its like saying Ali of 1974 was not as good as Ali of 1971’.
Walcott against Joe Louis is no more effective than he was for Marciano. Walcott had trained like a champion, fought flat out against Rocky like he was fighting for his life. Against Joe Louis he was more calculated, fought like he was holding back, looking to steal rounds.
　

This is an outrage. Holmes and Foreman fooled a lot of people. I was around at the time and Evander got a lot of flack for not shining against such old, old men. It was a no win situation for Evander the dury was still out on him as a good fighter or not BECAUSE of those fights.
This was not the case for Marciano.　

Like Bowe and Lewis? How old was Lewis? About the same age as Evander. I know they were bigger but expand how they were better exactly?

 

The other evidence I presented to suport my point of veiw is angelo dundee who knew Liston and Patterson very well. If angelo says patterson was psyched out I think it holds water.

 

you really should try an be less biased in your oppinions.

 

I know what you mean...can you believe that he would present actual facts in this thread...what we really want is unfounded and poorly grounded assinine opinions!!!

 

There is nothing biassed in saying holmes and foreman were lightly regarded 42-43 year old novalty fighters chancing their arm for a big payday because against holyfeild they were.

 

Thanks. I think I posted every single thing a fact in that response

 

Charles was 32, not 33 on june 17th, 1954.

No it means these guys were beating the top fighters in the division, some of which were young, big, prime top rated amateur stars like Clarence Henry and Bob Baker.

 

This is massaging the truth.

Charles was a light heavyweight for about 12 months after the war. Charles never fought during the war. Before the war charles was was under 169lb and just out of high school. Charles was fighting heavyweights from 1946. his peak was 1946-1953. "Lightheavyweight" did not exist as a real division. It was a title that smaller heavyweights could use as a springboard into the HW ratings.

charles either severly under estimated valdes or had a complete off night since he rebounded with much better wins. gillium outpointed valdes and walace knocked out gillium. by knocking out big wallace charles did the next best thing to avenging this fluke loss to valdes who he couldnt get to rematch. Ezz also beat gillium as well who was just as big as valdes. losing to valdes isnt even a blot on charles's record when you weigh it all up.

The layne loss was an awfull hometown rip off that charles avenged.

The walcott loss was also avenged according to the ringside press.

Harold Johnson was as good as anyone charles ever met. Their fight was razor close. most fans who view the film think charles won.

As an ex champ taking on hometown boys charles was not getting the breaks if a fight went to the cards. He was still as good as ever and no decline had set in.

Marciano v Charles was a 50-50 fight. Both men served during the war. since the war Charles was 55-7 against Rockys 45-0 and had fought in a much better class than marciano. 6 of those 7 losses could have gone Charles's way.

 

After reading many of your posts your oppinion means nothing to me.

 

I couldnt agree more

 

Charles beats him Walcott beats him and Moore may have a good shot....Sonny never beat that quality...Charles may KO him I think Walcott drops him and takes the UD....Moore may mongoose Sonny