Is Marciano...

you can use Moore and Louis‘s age all you want, but how come both of them beat multiple top 10 contenders before they fought Marciano? If Moore and Louis were so old, how come those younger contenders couldn’t beat them? I just checked their records last night, both of them beat multiple top guys in the top 10, some of them in the top 3 to 5, before they fought Marciano.

 

First of all, he would’ve never stayed around long enough Liston, he would’ve been too old. Patterson would’ve gotten smoked. Let’s not pretend Patterson was going to beat him.

 

I like how you think you know more than the Internet, go ahead and Google “Reynolds ring magazine heavyweight ratings”, he was rated in May 1949. It was the only time he reached the ratings within the top 10.

here, I did it for you.

Boxing: At his peak in the late 1940s, Reynolds was regarded as one of the outstanding heavyweights -- a guy who won 50 of his first 55 fights and, in May 1949, was ranked ninth in the world by Ring magazine.

https://www.ctinsider.com/sports/article/guest-commentary-fairfield-boxing-great-4279270.php

 

you’re acting like Matthews was a light heavyweight being outweighed by 20 to 30 pounds when he fought Marciano. Guys flipped between heavyweight and light heavyweight all the time in the era because they literally would show up 1 pound higher than the light heavyweight limit to fight at heavyweight. Matthew’s had a 50 fight win streak and was a ranked guy in both weight classes, to call him an overhyped light heavyweight is funny because he was actually the number one contender at light heavyweight at one point.

just say you hate Marciano and let it go, for a guy that gets **** on all the time, if he was so bad, surely, someone would’ve beaten him at least once.

 

Well you've clearly conceded the point that Lastarza was ranked now then. So now we’re back to ripping apart resumes? Interesting flip. You slammed Marciano for not fighting ranked contenders on his way up (which I’ve shown is false) & now you’re trashing the ranked fighters he did beat. Can’t have it both ways, can you.. If they were ranked by the Ring why does it matter if you don’t rate them now?

What do you want now then? A counter to your resume critique... fek me how many times we gotta do this with the Marciano knockers man ...

Charles was #1 NBA Heavy. Had just KOd top 10 ranked Bob Satterfeld who would go on to stop Cleveland Williams & Nino Valdes.

Walcott was #1 NBA Heavy. Had just won his trilogy with Ezzard Charles. Who in & among was beating Maxim, Louis, Bivins etc..

Moore was #1 NBA Heavy. Who at the time was so old & shot he defeated the likes of Valdes twice, Maxim 3 times, Durelle twice , Howard King multiple times, Bobo Olson, Howard Johnson & even at 47 beat an Olympic gold medalist.

Rex Layne #2 NBA Heavy. Was 34-1-2 had wins over Satterfield & Walcott & would go on to beat Charles.

Lastarza #2 NBA Heavy. Undefeated at the time of their first fight. Best career win would be Rex Layne who was coming off a win over Charles.

Harry Matthews #7 NBA. Was on a 50 fight win streak had beaten Rex Layne.

As for Cockell.. he had just beaten the aforementioned Matthews three times, Lastarza & an old Tommy farr. I don't particularly care about Cockell or that win, but there was a reason for it.. let's look .. yes he lost to a LHW Turpin who a year before, had become one of the few to defeat SRR.. but one of the documented reasons for the defeat was the difficulty that Cockell had in making the weigh, hence the subsequent move to HW.. The fight against Farr was a final eliminator for the British HW title which put Cockell in line for a title challenge. The bout for the British and Commonwealth titles was held & Cockell won on points. Cockell then had two more wins before defending his Commonwealth title in South Africa. Cockell then moved up the rankings by scoring three wins against American fighters. First he beat Lastarza on points & then he had successive victories over Kid Matthews. These victories then put him in line for a title fight against Marciano.

Was Marcianos record the greatest? No. I never said it was.. were they all prime or at their best? No. But Marciano faced the best available opposition of that era.. jump on the age thing or LHW thing all u like.. Marciano was basically a stumpy LHW anyway & in many cases was vastly inexperienced compared to his 'ageing' foes. Hope all that helps, have a spiffing day my friend, bored now..

 

This content is protected

What a shot

 

These Marciano haters always have an excuse, Archie Moore was too old, he was a previous middleweight and light heavyweight, he was old/passed his prime and the guys he beat were overrated, etc.

Never mind that he went into the Marciano fight on a 22 fight winning streak littered with top heavyweight contenders he cleared out, then he won 36 of his next 39 fights after the Marciano loss, which puts him at 58-2-1 in that window. His only two losses were to Marciano and Patterson.

Casuals, man.

 

Boring in it.. Marcianos an ATG. I don't think he's the greatest but top 10? Certainly. Enjoyed your posts mate keep up the good work.

 

Likewise!

His haters refuse to acknowledge the truth. The truth is he beat everyone put in front of him and the majority of those people he fought towards the end of his career were all highly rated contenders and former champions. There’s no getting around it. Sure, Archie Moore was old, he was previously a middleweight and a light heavyweight, but he was out there beating guys who fought at heavyweight most of their career, if not all of it, so you can’t have it both ways. Either Archie was old and shot or the guys he beat sucked. You can’t say both.

The Valdes not fighting Marciano argument is hysterical, considering all Valdes had to do was beat Archie Moore once in the two fights he had against him and he lost both times.

 

You do what every Rocky fan boy does.
Ignore the previous records of these men.
When you are presented with facts you always resort to calling the poster who has supplied them a hater;
It's akin to Trump being corrected multiple times,and his only answer being"fake news".
If it makes you happy to swallow all the B S that's fine.
You just jog on!

 

So are you going to admit you were wrong about LaStarza being ranked when he fought Rocky the first time? I’m still waiting on an apology for that. Oh, are you gonna also apologize for claiming Reynolds was never ranked when I proved he was?

 

You see, this is where you’re wrong. I know all the records of the men Marcano beat and what their records were going into those fights. They all had something in common, they beat people in the top 10 whether you like it or not. Kinda like when people claim Archie Moore was old and passed his prime, yet he beat Nino Valdes twice, Bob Baker, Joey Maxim several times and Harold Johnson. Pretty amazing that an old man beat all of those younger fighters.

 

You also like the cherry pick numbers. You go on about how Ezzard Charles went two and two in his previous four fights before fighting Marciano, but you leave out the nine fight win streak prior to those two losses, which were both competitive decisions against top contenders in Valdes and Johnson. So if you want to get technical about it, Charles had won 11 of his past 13 fights with a slew of those wins being over contenders. All of those fights occurred between 1952 and 1954 so it wasn’t like it was a very long window of activity.

 

Maxim and Johnson were Light heavies.

 

You think Marciano beating men who were once briefly ranked no 10 or 9 and were now on the way down is special.
Muscato was ranked no 10 in 47,but he fought Marciano in49!
Muscato was then 56-20-0.Thats the record of a journeyman.
He had lost his last 4 fights and would retire after the Marciano fight,I see nothing special about that win.
Beshore no 10 in1948. 30-13-1.Fought Marciano in1951
He had won just 2 of his last 9 fights and they were 2 sausages whose records were,
13-14-1 and19-6-2

Reynolds, congratulations you've found he was briefly ranked no 9 in49.The trouble is he fought Marciano in1952,he had lost 3 of his last 4,would fight another 4 times losing 3 of them and retire,again nothing special in that win.
Savold was washed,up he looks pitifully brave in that fight,a mobile punching bag who can offer nothing way of offence,he was shot to bits .The commission withdrew his licence for his own protection after the fight.

I concede I was wrong.You get no apology from me until you learn some manners,calling people you don't know liars from the safety of your pc
screen entitles you to zero respect.