Walcott and Charles were a lot better than Quarry but were a little past it when they fought Marciano.
What do you mean with "quarry was NEVER that consistent "? Did you see him fighting in the time of marciano against small and old guys? Quarry was one of the best guys in the strongest hw era in history. So you only can judge him for whar he did in that strong era
" a lot better" no way. Pfp charles was better no question about it but h2h at hw if he was better it is barely.quarry gave Frazier a war and frazier would clean the floor with charles literally. Quarry was in his prime at hw.prime charles was a lhw
He was losing to guys who were not the best or brightest of the era. A fine fighter for sure, but not somebody who is going to be consistent against the best in any era.
He gave to prime frazier a great great fight. How many fighters could do the same? Plus he did beat an undefeated ronny lyle,stopped shavers in 1,did beat floyd patterson, stopped.mc foster,the european champion jack bodell,buster mathis and brian london.
Yes but he often lost to the kind of guys that make up Marciano's resume! He was good against punchers, but he could be beaten by boxers. Marciano's era, was the era of the boxer!
Yes you got a point here but patterson was a skilled guy and quarry did beat him. Charles was a light guy and not too tall it is a factor too
