no not at all. hopkins was 43 years old and had slowed far more down than moore,walcott, charles had. not to mention hopkins arguebably beat calzaghe while marciano dominated moore,walcott, charles cleanly. no comparison. did hopkins go on a 45-1 run in 3 years leading up to the calzaghe fight the way archie moore did? also take note hopkins looked very dreadful vs calzaghe, while charles and walcott put up career definying performances vs maricano, both looked in top form from a physical and mental standpoint. you mean like the way he took 37 year old swarmer elmer ray? o thats right charles lost!! even in his prime he couldnt deal with an old puncher/swarmer like ray.....hows he going to deal with marciano? I have film of archie moore dating all the way back to 1946, and i would say moore looks essentially the same fighter 1947-1955 with his peak being around 51. he didnt fade, marciano made him fade by wearing him down on the flipside, both moore and charles fought rocky when rocky was in his early 30s, balding and rocky was past his prime himself. he had lost some speed and power from his shots too. IMO the 1951 rocky marciano was a whole different animal.
it was no gift, charles backpeddaling in the late rounds cost him. charles did not do enough to take the title away from champion. it was the most boring fight of the series, though. walcott landed the harder blows, walcotts more aggresive fighting helped him. btw I have yet to see you credit marciano for beating some of the top YOUNG contenders of his era like 37-0 roland lastarza 34-1 rex layne and 81-3 harry kid mathews...
Ketchel weighed 170 1/4 for Johnson.The 168 Burns was conceding 24 lbs to Johnson , but that isnt as much as Johnson's predessessor Jeffries received from Choynsky,Corbett,Fitz or Sharkey.
just curious powerpuncher......why are u critisizing marcianos opposition when he went 6-0 vs hall of famers, 12-0 vs top 10 rated contenders, desicevley beat the 4 best heavyweight contenders of his era........ what more do you want him to do? whup up on clarence henry and nino valdez?
I agree with this post. Johnson was a defensive specialist who knew how to circle, counter and time his opponents with his punches. He came from an era when fighters fought more than 15 rounds. Even though many of the fights in his time showcased a fair amount of posturing and holding, stamina wouldn't be an issue against Marciano. I have to favour Johnson by late KO or UD, but I wouldn't be surprised if Marciano has him in trouble in the middle rounds.
walcott did. he seemed to be getting stronger in the championship rounds. round 11 and 12 were his best rounds.
1. Yes they weren't as faded as BHOPs but its a similar situation. Nard had still beaten 2 top10 P4Pers on the run upto the fight and arguably got robbed against another top10 P4Per. How did you score BHOPs-Calazage, I had it to Nard on quality punches. 2. Charles ko'd Ray in the rematch and the first bout was an SD. Styles make fights and the fact Charles was making the fight look like Mayweather-Gatti makes me stronger think he pulls it out down the stretch to win on points in his prime. 3. I see you agree Walcott/Charles were faded, still marvelous wins. Moore just didnt have the gas tank but to take Rocky but maybe he never would have, I dont rank him as highly as Charles 4. His stamina would have been better in his prime so Marciano wouldnt have been able to break him down as effectively without eating counters. 5. Marciano was very near to prime against Charles, I agree he was past prime against Moore, I think he looked 'old overnight' in that fight, his back was clearly weakened from the back injury against Moore imo and he had to change his punching style, much like Calazage has changed him punching style due to bad hands
Marcianos is a great heavyweight champ without question and I have moved him up my HW top10 list over the last couple of years. Marciano answered all questions he could in his era. My only proposition is that Jack Johnson is a tougher kettle of fish than faded versions of Charles and Walcott and I think Jack pulls out the win in a tough battle of metador and bull
This forum seems to underrate Marciano for the most part. Some others have Marciano defeating Johnson by setting a pace which Johnson could not keep up with, while throwing too many powerful punches for Johnson's defense to deal with. The early rounds could be close but Marciano would overwhelm Johnson to win the fight by Unanimous Decision or stoppage.
so why tear down marcianos opposition to prove your point? did jack johnson ever beat someone has good as charles, moore, walcott, or even old louis? i dont think so
Walcotts prime was 1947-1952. while walcotts best performance came in dec 1947 vs louis, he also looked amazing in 1951 and 1952 vs charles III and marciano I, his 2nd and 3rd best filmed performances. His filmed performance vs hein ten hoff in 1950, he looked spectacular, and he supposedly looked great when he knocked out hall of famer harold johnson out in 51. while 47 walcott looked the best with his footwork, footspeed, and jab......I dont think he looked much worse in the early 1950s. in fact i could make a case his performance vs marciano was his career best as he has never shown that kind of punchrate, workrate, punching power, AGGRESION, and warrior mentallity before. his jab vs marciano was pinpoint sharp. Take note walcott had just beaten a near prime charles twice and hall of famer harold johnson, so he had the resume to back it up coming into the marciano fight.
I had it nard too, but I also think nard looked awful. he seemed to have aged, his workrate was very bad, and his sharp timing on his counterpunches wasnt there anymore. I thought moore, charles, walcott looked much sharper, better reflexes, more CONFIDENT in the first fights and even louis looked sharper in the first 5 rounds.. Ray and marciano had similiar style. ray beat charles by outworking him, wearing charles down. charles kayoed ray in the rematch, but ray was near 39 at this point and was not the same fighter he was a couple years earlier. papers really empasized ray started to really decline after 47. im confused which fight looked like gatti-mayweather? 2nd marciano deserved a title shot all the way back to 51, how come charles didnt give rocky a title shot then? rocky was younger faster harder punching in 51-52 than he was in 1954 where his style changed and he grew older(for the worse IMO). I mean would any young fighter have the gas tank to handle that 6th-9th round outrageous non stop power punching rocky put up for those 3 rounds? Take note moore had enough gas tank months earlier to win the last 3 rounds against # 1 contender 6'3 215lb nino valdez in the hot havana sun. possibly so, but take note in 54-55 marciano was not in his prime anymore was he?? too me marciano looked fresher sharper faster harder punching in 1951-52. so i think it works both ways dont you? charles of 48 has a good shot to take marciano due to style reasons, but i also think marciano has a good shot of breaking down and stopping charles on his best day. in a trilogy, you have to make marciano the favorite 2-1 since rocky also did extremeley well in rematches. could charles have beaten rocky two in a row? NOT A CHANCE! while i agree with this somewut, i think it started back in 54, not 55.
1. I wouldn't say he looked awful but the output and speed has left him, I can't see him beating Pavlik now, which is a shame. Nard is a throwback fighting the best of the best at 43 is unpresidented today 2. Again the fight was an SD and I'm sure allot had it to Charles, maybe an off night for Charles? I think its clear Charles was the better fighter 3. The early rounds of Charles-Marciano 1 made Charles look a class apart 4. Who knows why the fight didn't happen in '51, probably politics, Charles fought pretty much everyone 5. Who knows Rocky's stamina and workrate is legendary. BUT when your in with a high workrate fighter you need to have your stamina at its best to keep up. If your in your 30s you simply don't have the same stamina you had in your 20s, hell at 28 I can't do near the lap times I did at 21 or throw punches for as many rounds and I still train as intensely but I have added muscle so that detracts too. 6. Moore could take late rounds against Valdez because the pace wasn't as intense, ie Valdez didnt have as much stamina to push him into as deeper murky waters that Rocky did. Again I don't see any version of Moore handling Marciano 7. Marciano was past prime against Moore, but still had plenty of stamina to drown Moore. Marciano kept his stamina really well still in '55, it probably hadn't declined too much at all. I think if he fought on and his stamina did decline he'd be in trouble from 56-58 imo, not because of a different class of fighter but because he'd be past prime 8. I agree, its not a knock on Marciano that I see this as a 50-50 if they're prime for prime. Charles is underrated as a heavyweight and in general for my money. 9. Hard to say Charles is the sort of fighter to make you look past prime
Hard to say, possibly not, my point wasn't who had the better competition, rather if a fighter I don't consider quite as good as Johnson nearly beats Marciano, then Jack does 1 better. But lets analyse anyway. Jeffries is always an underrated win for me, just like Charles tried to get back to his best against Rocky, Jeffries looked in amazing condition against Johnson, even if they try to make it seem he was half dead. Jeffries said after the fight he'd never beat Johnson 50fight veteran Langford is a great win and it was easy. Super HEavyweight Denver Ed Martin is an underrated win as is Ferguson Did Jeanette and McVey have more fights than their records suggest? They were certainly pre-prime so its hard to know how good these versions were. The fact they were competitive indicates they weren't too far from their best but its hard to know