Marciano Beats Ali?

This is very dishonest of you.

Walcott retired after the rematch, didn't he? Does that sound like a fighter who is not far from his prime? No.

Charles was 2-2 in his last four and began his career as a middleweight. Does that sound like a fighter who is not far from his prime? No.

La Starza is a nobody in a long list of No Hopers that litter Marciano's record. But I'm glad that you mentioned La Starza because many ring side observers thought he got jobbed in the first fight.


So, again I ask; What fighters did Marciano beat while still in their prime?

 

Marciano was 5"11 and I have stood next to Frazier and not so sure he was 5"11 but he was a thick necked scary looking human.

Marciano was not strickly a left hooker but had a hell of a hook and his right was also a killer

Marciano was not a pitter patter puncher he had WOOD on everything he threw but he beat a lot of fast fighters to the punch and had a quick execution and some short distance travel.

You are entitiled to your opinion but I disagree and I think Ali would be the best one to decide who was a tough opponent for him. I respect his honesty and I agree with him ...Marciano is a tough opponent stylistically for him.

 

is that a turd on your hat or a phallic symbol

 

Like who?

 

Don't look now but your ignorance is showing....

 

Again, Walcott was near the best performances of his career. As was Moore. Charles was a few years departed from them.

It is flawed logic that tries to prove a negative by way of a positive, i.e. that Marciano is lacking by way of his victories. What we can say of Marciano is the highest we can say of any fighter, he beat the best available. Your question which you repeat "who was in their prime" is largely subjective and open to interpretation. What is not open to interpretation is that he beat them... and that Ali lost to both Frazier and Norton.

 

you troll at all hours, don't you

 

Your praise of Marciano is also largely subjective and open to interpretation.

 

Walcott was also *38* and very near the end of his career. Yet, you Marciano nut-gulpers are silent when it comes to this fact.

Why is that?

 

Many people underestimate him because of his appearance and the general inclination to discount smallish fighters from early eras.

 

The Rock was also rather crude and clumsy...another reason people don't really give him any respect in classic matchups.

 

Walcott was champion. I agree that Marciano should have avoided him and fought... oh, exactly whom?

Apparently some find it hard to swallow the fact that Marciano was the undefeated heavyweight champ during boxing's absolute zenith, a period during which the sport had its highest recruitment among the available talent pool. And the little runt with stooped shoulders and stubby limbs ruled the division. This is not up to interpretation.

That nut gulper **** is hilarious by the way. Really, the more you repeat it the funnier it is. Really, you don't need to come up with new material because that is better than Pryor. Genius.

 

Holmes didn't think Marciano was qualified to carry his jock-strap. So I agree with you in that I think Holmes would be the best one to decide who was/was not qualified to carry his jock-strap. I respect his honesty and I agree with him. Marciano wasn't qualified to carry Larry Holmes' jock-strap...

 

Let's not dodge the topic @ hand.

Walcott was not "near his prime" when Marciano fought him, contrary to what you Marciano nut-gulpers are programmed to keep repeating.

I'll ask a again, What fighters did Marciano beat while still in their prime?

 

You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

Marciano fought in the weakest of heavyweight eras. Period.

You must gargle with Marciano jizz every morning before leaving for work...