If Walcott managed to box his way to a decision over Marciano...

It's funny. I think I rate Walcott higher for almost beating the unbeaten Marciano than I would beating the 48-1 Marciano and being the only 1 in the L column. If that makes sense.

 

Question how do you guys think walcott would have done in 1953 vs guys like baker, valdez, lastarza, henry???

 

Makes perfect sense.

The nobility of failure and all that.

 

so ur saying had rocky lost to walcott he would have had only 49 fights? i dont buy it. i say if rocky loses to walcott, he then fights about 5 or more 6 fights against top guys like henry valdez to pile up his record to get another shot. rocky retires 55-1.

 

how does it make perfect sense? rocky isnt just going to get another title shot if he loses. he is going to have to beat top guys like henry baker satterfield valdez moore to get that 2nd shot. Al Weill with rocky now having lost his unbeaten record will be alot more likely to test rocky more often now too. i say rocky fights 55-56 times.

 

You have issues...

 

If Marciano would have lost it is more than likely he would have had to fight more fights to get back and would not have worried about an undefeated record

 

If Walcott won the first fight, then:

1 )Rocky drops out of the top ten.

2 ) Walcott moves up a few nothces.

 

I think that he would have beaten any of them on the night he fought Marciano.

In practice however the Marciano fight would have taken something out of him even if he won. That would give whoever he defended his title against next a window of oportunity.

 

I agree the Walcott of the Marciano fight would have beaten, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe,Sharkey,Baer,Schmeling,Patterson,Frazier and would have had a chance over Ali,Dempsey,Lewis,Louis,Liston and Marciano

 

That was the criteria of the thread, I believe.

 

I think Rocky might drop from my top 10, and Walcott might move up to 11.